Military Review

The battle of Merce el-Kebir. Facts and Figures

119

"Catapult"



In early July 1940, the English naval fleet a series of operations was carried out, killing more than 1 French sailors. United under the general name "Catapult", they provided for the capture or destruction of the ships of their allies of yesterday in the English and colonial French ports.

The main events during the implementation of the aforementioned operation took place as follows. The British seized the battleship Courbet in Portsmouth on July 3, the next day in Paris the turn of the battleship Paris, the counter-destroyer Le Triomphant, the destroyer Mistral and the world's largest submarine Surcouf. The British also planned a raid on the port of Pointe à Pitre, where the aircraft carrier Béarn, the cruiser Émile Bertin and the light training cruiser Jeanne d'Arc were located, however, the attack planned for 8 July was canceled at the last minute due to the personal intervention of US President Franklin D. Roosevelt. On July XNUMX, at the port of Alexandria, the British threatened the crews of the French battleship Lorraine, the cruisers Duquesne, Tourville, Suffren and Duguay-Trouin, as well as the destroyers Forbin, Fortuné, Basque and the Persée submarine to deliver them ship fuel, gun locks and torpedo warheads. Part of the crews of the French ships was interned. Three days later, Rear Admiral Planson rejected the English ultimatum, and on the morning of July XNUMX, the battleship Richelieu, located in Dakar, was attacked by six English torpedo bombers from the Hermes aircraft carrier. One of the torpedoes dropped by them damaged the stern of the vessel, a significant amount of sea water was received through the resulting hole with an area of ​​almost eighty square meters, and the ship crashed.

The largest naval battle involving linear forces


In one case, it came to an armed clash at Mers al-Kebir, which became the largest naval battle in the European theater of operations with the participation of linear forces during the Second World War.

In the early morning of July 3, the “N” compound, whose cash was represented by the flagship battlecruiser “Hood” (flag of Vice Admiral D. Sommerville), the battleships “Valiant” and “Resolution”, the aircraft carrier “Ark Royal”, and the cruisers “ Arethusa ”and“ Enterprise, ”approached Oran.

At 06:31 (hereinafter referred to as English), the Fairey Swordfish biplane (hereinafter Swordfish) rose from the deck of the Ark Royal aircraft carrier, heading for reconnaissance and for tracking to the unfinished naval base Mers el-Kébir ) and the port of Oran. According to the Anvil (Anvil) plan, aircraft carrier aircraft were supposed to attack French surface ships and submarines deployed in these two ports with bombs and torpedoes. Also on aviation Ark Royal carrier group was entrusted with ensuring the adjustment of the fire of heavy ships.

Two hours later, the scout reported that the French battleships and counter-destroyers were breeding pairs. Forty minutes later, he received a message that tents were being turned off on French battleships and four Swordfish biplanes flew out to French ports for reconnaissance. At 11:05, the commander of Compound H, Rear Admiral D. Somerville (James Fownes Somerville) gave the order to drop six Mark I aviation magnetic mines (weight 680 kg, explosive weight 340 kg), and at 13:07 to Mears el- Five Swordfish biplanes flew off the kebir, accompanied by six Blackburn B-24 Skua aircraft (hereinafter Skua), where one mine was dropped in front of the anti-submarine fence blocking the harbor entrance, and another four behind the barrier. The discharge of mines was carried out from a height of 90 meters at an aircraft speed of 175 km / h.

At 13:45, seven Swordfish biplanes were lifted from the Ark Royal deck, accompanied by three Skua planes, four went on reconnaissance, one on reconnaissance, and two on anti-submarine patrols. At 15:25, two Swordfish biplanes (No.4K and No.4M) mined the entrance to Oran Harbor. Both mines were dropped from a height of 45 meters at a distance of 60 meters from the entrance to the harbor, as a result, not a single ship with a displacement of more than a thousand tons could leave the port without risk of being blown up by a mine. British planes, laying mines, at a height of about sixty meters approached the French ships and freely counted them (seventeen destroyers and avisos, a large number of transports and a hospital ship “Sphinx” with a displacement of 11 tons), while the French side showed complete indifference to the actions of yesterday allies.

At 16:20, the Ark Royal was in full swing - it was necessary to ensure the return of 13 Swordfish biplanes, 9 Skua aircraft and three Swordfish floats. Three Swordfish were lifted to replace the air, set off to barrage over Mers al-Kebir.

At 17:15, after an unsuccessful completion of the nine-hour formal negotiations with the French, who rejected the English ultimatum, Somerville, urged by the Admiralty, ordered firing on the French compound, which included the battleships Dunkerque, Strasbourg, Bretagne and Provence , the Commandant Teste, the counter-destroyers Mogador, Volta, Terrible, Kersaint, Lynx and Tigre. A little later, between the commanders of the English and French units, an exchange of radio messages took place. In the case of failure to accept the ultimatum to open fire on the French, Vice Admiral M. Zhansul (Marcel-Bruno Gensoul) replied briefly: “Do not create the irreparable”

At 17:54 the first to open fire was “Resolution”.


Then “Valiant” and “Hood” entered the battle sequentially. On the French side, a minute and a half later, the first to return fire was the Provence.

Over the next thirteen minutes of fire contact, the English heavy ships, at a maximum visibility range of about 17 yards, made thirty-three volleys. Three more salvos (probably seven 500 "shells) were made by the English flagship on the coastal battery Fort Canastel (Canastel). In total, heavy ships of the compound" H "fired 15 144" shells, including the battle cruiser "Hood" fifty-five ( according to other sources, fifty-six). Taking into account the shooting at the coastal battery, it can be assumed that 15 137 "shells were fired directly at French ships.

The battle of Merce el-Kebir. Facts and Figures

In total, three French battleships fired 67 main-caliber shells, including “Dunkerque” - forty 330-mm shells (six volleys, red bursts), “Strasbourg” - four 330-mm shells (blue bursts), “Provence "- twenty-three 340-mm shells (ten salvos, bursts of green). The battleship "Bretagne" also fired at the enemy (the British observed splashes of yellow), but the number of shells fired by him is unknown.

The fire of the British, unlike the French, who did not achieve a single hit, turned out to be extremely accurate - the French ships were hit by ten 15 "shells (one in the counter-destroyer" Mogador ", four in" Bretagne ", four in" Dunkerque "and one in "Provence").

Shooting compound "N", marching seventeen-node course, was conducted in not very favorable conditions. The targets were located against the coast, the observation of the fall of shells was initially hampered by the presence of a fort and a high pier, and immediately after the fall of the first shells the harbor became clouded with smoke mixed with light fog, which exacerbated the situation and made it impossible to observe the shells fall, so the British as a guide a lighthouse was used for sighting. Apparently, given the conditions of the upcoming shooting, the British relied on the control of the fire of the ships according to the data of the aircraft-spotters (GIC - Individual Ship Control). The firing accuracy achieved as a result (7,3%) looks impressive, especially against the background of firing accuracy of battleships in two other known cases.

During the Battle of Jutland, the English battleships Barham, Valiant, Warspite and Malaya fired 1 main-caliber shells (range 099-17 yards), of which 000 were hit. American battleships Colorado, “Maryland” and “West Virginia” fired at a twelve-node firing range during the 22-000 period, firing fifty-six 29 ”rounds (seven volleys). The targets — the floating shields — were at a distance of about 1930 yards, the accuracy achieved by three battleships amounted to 1931%, 16% and 12%, respectively.

French coastal artillery, as well as their land-based air defense systems, also demonstrated ineffective firing.

From land, the sea approaches to the French naval base were covered by eight coastal defense batteries distributed between four sectors.

1) Sector Est d'Oran:

- Cape Laguy: two 95-mm guns of coastal defense (canon G de 95 mm Mle 1888).

- Fort Canastel: three (according to Jensul two) 240 mm guns from a battleship of the "Danton" type (canon de 240 mm mle 1902).


- Battery Espagnole: two 75 mm guns.

- Battery Gambetta: four 120 mm guns.

2) Sector A Oran:

- Battery Saint Grégoire: four 95-mm guns of coastal defense (canon G de 95 mm Mle 1888).

3) Sector Ouest d'Oran:

- Fort Santon: four (according to Jensul, two) 194-mm guns (canon de 194 mm mle 1902).

- Cape Falcon: two 95-mm guns of coastal defense (canon G de 95 mm Mle 1888).

4) Mers El Kébir Sector:

- Two-gun 75 mm battery (canon de 75mm Mle 1897).

In pursuance of the order received the day before the British attack, to disarm, according to the terms of the armistice, all coastal batteries, from part of the guns, managed to remove the gun locks, which the next day, after the British had submitted an ultimatum, they had to urgently unpack and put the guns in combat readiness. The coastal Fort Forton battery of 194 mm guns fired 30 shells at the English flagship, without achieving a single hit. The return fire of the Arethusa cruiser, firing four 6 "rounds (two volleys), as well as the Hood battlecruiser, which fired three volleys at the battery, also failed. Intensive fire on the English destroyer Wrestler was fired by Fort Canastel coastal batteries (240 guns from a battleship of the "Danton" type), as well as Espagnole (2 75 mm guns) and Gambetta (2 120 mm guns). However, none of them reached the target, for the Wrestler, like the other fighter fired by the French , hid behind a smoke screen.

The armament of Fort Mers al-Kebir also included the 159th air defense battery (four 75 mm anti-aircraft guns on the Mle 1915-34 mount).

In the air defense of Oran - Mers-el-Kebir, in addition, they included:

- 157th air defense battery (four 75-mm anti-aircraft guns Mle 32);

- 158th air defense battery (four 75-mm anti-aircraft guns Mle 1915-34);

- 160th battery (four 75-mm anti-aircraft guns Mle 1915-34).

These three batteries, as well as the 159th battery, were organizationally part of the 53rd group of the 66th RAA regiment (régiment d'artillerie d'Afrique - African artillery regiment).

The following forces were subordinated to the navy on the shore:

- Mobile N ° 2 battery of the Navy (four 90 mm Mle 32 anti-aircraft guns).

- Navy mobile battery N ° 8 (four 90 mm Mle 32 anti-aircraft guns).

- A site in Oran, covered by 8 mm Mitralechis Hotchkiss (Hotchkiss modèle 1914).

It should be emphasized that not a single air defense battery after the armistice did not proceed to disarmament. Almost all of them opened fire on British aircraft, however, not one of them was shot down due to insufficient training of personnel, especially to combat low-flying targets.

French aviation, despite the quantitative and qualitative superiority, was also not up to par.

Against the aircraft formation of the Ark Royal aircraft carrier, which included 3 aircraft on July 45 (800th squadron - 12 Skuas; 803th squadron - 12 Skuas; 810th squadron - 12 Swordfish; 818th squadron - 9 Swordfish), the French could oppose the combined forces of the French Air Force and Navy from the military airfields of Sénia (La Sénia) and d'Arzew (d'Arzew), located at a distance of six and thirty-five kilometers, respectively, from Mercy el-Kebira. The first was based on fifty Morane-Saulnier MS.406 and Curtiss Hawk 75A-4 fighters, as well as fifty medium and light Lioré-et-Olivier LeO 45 and Bloch MB.174 bombers. On the second, there were 8 Loire 130 seaplanes.

If, according to the command of the base, Seny Colonel Rougevin (Rougevin), the crews of the bombers were not prepared to conduct military operations against naval targets, and the bombers themselves were only partially combat-ready (in accordance with the order received in June, some of the instruments were removed from them), then the fighters According to him, they were in perfect order, and the pilots were ready to perform combat missions.

In the interval 18: 05-18: 20 with the order to bombard the English ships, six seaplanes took off, three of which, pursued by British aircraft, managed to reach the target and drop six 75 kg of bombs.

Late in the evening, two Skua returning to the Ark Royal collided with a Breguet 521 Bizerte flying boat. After the second attack of one of the English fighters, the French, having disabled one of the three engines and a broken gas tank, dropped several 400 kg bombs on the English destroyer Wrestler, which fell forty-five meters from the ship.

At 17:20, Jensul received an order to raise fighters into the air, out of the fifty available, forty-two took off. However, as noted by English observers, the attacks of French fighters, which had numerical and material superiority, but which, according to Jensul's report, did not have clear orders, were not persistent.

Within ten minutes, while the compound "N" fired, two spotters unimpededly carried out their task until at 18:04 the command to cease fire was received by the British. Later, both biplanes were attacked by French fighters. The first of them, maneuvering at low speed, managed to evade the attacking French fighter, the second was covered by anti-aircraft artillery of British surface ships.

At 18:30, five French Curtiss fighters spotted a Skua link, re-attacking the Ark Royal spotter.

As a result of a short battle, the French managed to bring down one Skua, both crew members were killed. The French did not develop success and returned to base, and the remaining Skua escorted the second Swordfish to an aircraft carrier.

At 19:10, at an altitude of 3650 meters, nine Curtiss and Morane fighters attacked a single Swordfish from the back hemisphere, in the subsequent “dog fight” with two English escort fighters, two French planes (Curtiss and Morane) were injured and left the battlefield. Twenty minutes later, two more Curtiss appeared, and a “dog fight” ensued with no visible results on either side.

Losses of Ark Royal aircraft during daytime operations amounted to five units - 2 Swordfish (bomber and reconnaissance aircraft) were shot down by anti-aircraft fire of French ships going to Toulon, one Skua was shot down in an air battle, and two more reconnaissance aircraft Swordfish and Skua made forced landing on the water.

The French side had no losses in aircraft.

Conclusions


The combination of objective and subjective reasons prevented the French armed forces, despite the resources and capabilities, from repelling the treacherous attack of yesterday’s ally. A considerable part of the blame for the tragedy, according to the author, lies with the French commander, who at the crucial moment showed himself not as a combat commander of the squadron, but as an official in the admiral's uniform, which, in essence, he was.

Applications


Hits in French ships:

The battleship "Dunkerque".


The first 15 "shell hit the roof of the tower II guns of the main caliber.


An explosion did not follow, the shell from the impact split into several parts, ricocheting in different directions. A dent was formed on the outside of the armor plate (150 mm thick), a piece of armor 100-120 mm thick and weighing more than 200 kg flew off from the inside, damaging gun No. 8.


The second 15 "shell, also without exploding, went through the aircraft hangar, leaving a through hole in the latter and damaging the deck area.







The third 15 "shell pierced the 225-mm plate of the main armor belt on the starboard side, passed through a number of rooms and exploded in a medical equipment warehouse.


The consequences of this hit made themselves felt until nightfall: five or six 130-mm shells exploded, exacerbating the damage caused by the English shell and causing a severe fire, to eliminate which it was necessary to flood the cellar of tower No. 3 of an average caliber, and then the cellar of a similar tower IV.

The fourth 15 "shell hit the main armor belt almost above the waterline. Having pierced the armor plate (225 mm thick) and the slant of the armored deck (40 mm thick), the shell went through the fuel tank filled with fuel oil almost to the top and exploded in the compartment of the boiler room No. 2.

As a result of the last two hits, two of the three boiler rooms stopped working, and the aft compartment was de-energized. The starboard network ceased to function, the fire control posts of the guns of caliber 330 mm and 130 mm, as well as the tower II of the main guns, ceased operation due to lack of electricity.

The battleship Provence.


An unexploded 15 "shell that hit the tower of the battleship" Dunkerque ", on impact, split into several parts, one of which - almost the entire main part of the shell - hit the Provence focus mast. The result was the failure of the central command and rangefinder post and grave wound of a senior artillery officer of the ship, Lieutenant Cherrière, who lost his leg.

Later, with unidentified objects, possibly fragments, two more range finders were damaged, including the one installed on tower II of the main caliber, and the muzzle of the barrel of the right 340 mm gun of tower III was deformed.


The hit at 17:03 of the only 15 "shell that hit the battleship fell on the stern (in the photo you can see the inlet, from the opposite side the breaking out clubs of steam attract attention).



Passing through the officer’s cabin and breaking through the armored deck, the shell damaged the pipe of the steam distribution manifold, and then exploded in a warehouse located on the inside of the port side. One of the armored plates (thickness 160 mm) was blown off the mounts by the force of an explosion; a hole was formed in the ship's hull. Since the fire in the officer’s cabin and steam escaping from the chimney quickly raised the temperature in a number of rooms, heating the bulkhead of the main caliber artillery cellars, the decision was made to flood the cellars of tower V first and then tower IV.

As the feed was immersed in water, the resulting hole began to enter the water, which increased the volume of water entering the vessel. Rear Admiral Buxen (Jacques Félix Emmanuel Bouxin), fearing for the fate of the battleship, ordered the ship's commander to land the Provence, where two more hours the fighting between the emergency crews and the two tugboats that approached broke off against the fire that raged around the stern of the ship.

Counter-destroyer "Mogador".

Being the flagship (flag of Rear Admiral Lacroix (Émile-Marie Lacroix)), the ship led a group of six destroyers who left the parking lot and moved to the port exit.

As a result of a direct hit of a 15 "projectile at the stern, 16 depth charges were detonated (weight 250 kg, according to other sources 200 kg).


Interestingly, the stern artillery cellar of the main caliber guns, directly adjacent to the explosion site and protected by an armored bulkhead, survived. Ship’s cars weren’t affected either.




The messenger ship (advice) Rigault de Genouilly.


On July 3, 1940, the advice note was in Oran. Having received news of the British attack on the French squadron, the ship quickly leaves the port to try to join the escort of the battleship "Strasbourg", but the low speed did not allow him to fulfill his plan. After an unsuccessful maneuver, the ship faces the English squadron and, as a result of a brief skirmish with the Enterprise cruiser, gets damaged. The number of hits is not known. The next day, the Rigault de Genouilly was torpedoed by the English submarine Pandora. Holding out on the water for about an hour, the ship broke in half and sank.

Used sources and literature

1 John Campbell Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting.
2. Warren Tute. The Deadly Stroke.
3. Williams J. Jurens. Evolution Of Battleship Gunnery In The US Navy 1920-1945.
4. Bruce Taylor. The End of Glory: War & Peace in HMS Hood 1916-1941.
5. David Brown The Road to Oran: Anglo-French Naval Relations, September 1939-July 1940.
6. Charles D. Pettibone. The Organization and Order of Battle of Militaries in World War II: Volume VI Italy and France.
7. Report of Proceedings HMS Warspite at the Battle of Jutland.
8. Report of Proceedings HMS Valiant at the Battle of Jutland.
9. The official Admiralty war diary of Force H during Hood's time of involvement.
10. An official Admiralty account of the action at Mers El-Kebir.
11. A firsthand account of the action written by Royal Marine Band Corporal Walter Rees, of HMS Hood.
12. A firsthand account of the action written by Paymaster Sub-Lieutenant Ronald G. Phillips, of HMS Hood.
13. Robert Dumas. Les cuirasses Dunkerque et Strasbourg.
14 Jean Moulin Les cuirassés français de 23500 tons.
15. Le premier rapport de l'amiral Gensoul.
16. Le deuxième rapport de l'amiral Gensoul.
17.air-defense.net.
18.laroyale-modelisme.net.
19.sudwall.superforum.fr.
20.merselkebir.unblog.fr.
21.Dynamic-mess.com.
22dhistory.de.
Author:
119 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 21 December 2019 05: 56
    +3
    In great detail, clear, but dry. Can you ask a question? In the lower part of the stem of the "Provence" what is the kerchief ledge? It is unlikely that the SAC antenna, the wrong times and the wrong ship class, maybe just a flaw in cutting out the contour with retouching?
    Description of a couple of phrases: a toad with a viper was fighting.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Vladislav 73
      Vladislav 73 21 December 2019 11: 28
      +11
      The protrusion in the lower part of the stem is the attachment point for the paravan, a standard ship's mine sweep. Many ships of that era had this attribute. Here, for example, the Italian "Littorio". If you look closely, you can see the attachment points of the paravan in the drawing of the "Dunkirk" model. hi
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 21 December 2019 18: 50
        +1
        Thanks. Represented a little differently, but looked at the circuit, everything is correct.
    3. Comrade
      22 December 2019 03: 04
      +7
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Very detailed, clear, but dry.

      This is my style: maximum information, minimum emotions.
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      In the lower part of the stem of the "Provence" what is the kerchief ledge?

      Not only Provence, Dunkerque had it too.
  2. saigon
    saigon 21 December 2019 06: 03
    +6
    Here again, in all its glory, we see the actions of the British against their allies, the war with Germany is a little on the side, but we’ll demolish the ally’s fleet just in case.
    I can’t recall another case in the so-called close times of so mean actions against our allies.
    Although recalling the history of the formation and development of the British Empire, there are many examples of meanness.
    1. Grossvater
      Grossvater 21 December 2019 06: 52
      +18
      Not against the allies, against the deserters, whom at all times and in all states were shot!
      Actually, France objectively became Germany’s most important ally, second only to the Czech Republic in this capacity.
      So a very big question is who the scoundrel is here! Well, to believe that Germany would not want to take the French fleet into her hands, and the French would not give it up, more than naively.
      Hm! And who can remember the case when France generally fulfilled its obligations to the allies? Throughout her story?
      1. saigon
        saigon 21 December 2019 11: 45
        +7
        Well, and in what way could the chances have the French fleet in Africa, in Syria or there in Martinique tidied up? And especially in the British ports!
        And how did the French defect in this way, it’s probably they drapanuli from Dunkirk having thrown the heroically beating Englishmen on the shore?
        Actually, having taken advantage of such occasions, the British eliminated the fleet of their allies and, in the future, let us say so of their competitors.
        You probably noticed my special love for the British?
        Please note that I personally have great respect for the soldiers and sailors of Britain (our allies in that war), but my attitude to the British politicians is unambiguous - people without a glimpse of conscience.
        Oh yeah, how I forgot about the Charlemagne division defending Berlin and there basically died out, though it’s worth remembering the other Euro SSs that were in Berlin.
        Well, forgive nonsense to compare the country that lost the war with the deserter, and then how to call an act of aggression against the country that is not at war with your beloved Great Britain (in my opinion, the aggressor who attacked his former ally with his hell can’t justify an ally again not what reasons)
      2. knn54
        knn54 21 December 2019 16: 41
        +3
        Alexey, DESTERS from Dunkirk were evacuated. And with the very STRANGE behavior of the Germans.
      3. Comrade
        22 December 2019 03: 11
        +5
        Quote: Grossvater
        Not against the allies, against the deserters, whom at all times and in all states were shot!

        The French have their own truth.
        When the Germans went to Dunkirk, the British evacuated their fighters, while the French held back the Germans at that time.
        Objectively, the English then deserted from the battlefield.
        Quote: Grossvater
        Well, to believe that Germany would not want to take the French fleet into her hands, and the French would not give it up, more than naively.

        After the war, France specifically studied this issue, did the Germans want to capture its fleet then or not? So, no documentary evidence of this bike was found in the German archives. In the summer of 1940, the Germans did not intend and did not plan to put a paw on French ships.
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 22 December 2019 09: 32
          0
          After the war, France specifically studied this issue, did the Germans want to capture its fleet then or not? So, no documentary evidence of this bike was found in the German archives. In the summer of 1940, the Germans did not intend and did not plan to put a paw on French ships.
          And how could the British find out about this?
        2. Cyer
          Cyer 23 December 2019 09: 02
          0
          When the Germans went to Dunkirk, the British evacuated their fighters, while the French held back the Germans at that time.


          According to official data from the British Ministry of the Navy, during Operation Dynamo (May 26 to June 4, 1940), a total of 338 Allied troops were evacuated from the French coast in the Dunkirk area [226] [6]. Of this amount, before the start of Operation Dynamo, the Dunkirk area was evacuated to the British Isles 59,3 thousand British troops [5], during the Dynamo operation 139,8 thousand British [5] and 139 thousand military personnel of the allied countries were taken out [5] (about 90 thousand French [6], as well as Belgians and military personnel of other allied countries).

          A very interesting "desertion":

          - "deserters" evacuated 60 thousand.

          - "the French who were holding back the Germans" evacuated 90 thousand

          This is my style: maximum information, minimum emotions.
          - This statement sounds weirder and weirder.
          1. Cyer
            Cyer 23 December 2019 09: 16
            -1
            Sorry, didn’t finish it: 140 thousand Britons were taken out during Operation Dynamo. Which, in general, does not really change the essence of the matter - 90 thousand of the exported French have not gone anywhere.
        3. Romka47
          Romka47 30 December 2019 13: 17
          +1
          And I liked it! The article is definitely a plus, keep up the good work! and in style!
    2. vladcub
      vladcub 21 December 2019 09: 52
      +2
      Saigon, do not forget that preceded this operation "Catapult": France surrendered and actually went over to the side of Germany.
      In such cases, do not stand on ceremony with traitors
      1. knn54
        knn54 21 December 2019 11: 26
        +5
        Svyatoslav, Pathen did not declare war on Great Britain. To finish off the former allies is the "FIRM style" of the Anglo-Saxons. not Germans. Yes, and in the future one "competitor" less.
        INTERESTING: what would happen if the French REALLY declared (an occasion more than sufficient) a war on the British?
        To de Gaulle's credit, he did not forget this "Catapult" of the British.
        1. Comrade
          22 December 2019 03: 22
          +3
          Quote: knn54
          INTERESTING: what would happen if the French REALLY declared (an occasion more than sufficient) a war on the British?

          Would not be announced.
          French public opinion was on the side of the British. The townsfolk - the crushing and lazy descendants of their great ancestors - could not believe that the British had done this, and accused their sailors that they themselves were supposedly to blame, probably something was said or done wrong.
          The French sailors escaping from Mers el-Kebir were shocked by this attitude from their compatriots.
          1. Cyer
            Cyer 23 December 2019 08: 44
            -2
            This is my style: maximum information, minimum of emotions.


            Philistines - chopped and lazy descendants their great ancestors


            No emotion at all.
      2. saigon
        saigon 21 December 2019 12: 11
        +2
        Again, how France actually sided with Germany, oh yes, with a pirate attack on French bases in Syria, German planes seemed to help the French destroyers in battle with the British.
        Well, and once again, how does a country that loses and signs a surrender switch to the side of the enemy?
        Perhaps the French seized the ships of the British and attacked their overseas naval bases, or is everything a little different?
        Now, in order to make my idea clearer from the heights of strategies and politics, we lower the situation to the level of such a simple street fight as two (England and France have a scuffle with Germany) and during this action the Frenchman rakes the scoreboard and falls, the fight cannot continue even at a wonderful moment his friend, an Englishman, using a break in a scuffle begins to kick the Frenchman in the ribs, scrotum and knocks out his teeth.
        How do you like this and who is the traitor and (the situation is exaggerated, but very clearly describes the behavior of the Aglichans)
    3. antivirus
      antivirus 21 December 2019 13: 31
      +3
      killed-drowned obeyed Peten. DeGol and others - Friends of Brit
      so the colonial empire of France perished
      10 years later, the British received a pill from an ally - USA

      I wrote a lot and received spitting "force is needed against the allies" on the Bosphorus operation
    4. Trilobite Master
      Trilobite Master 21 December 2019 15: 11
      +7
      Quote: saigon
      I can’t recall another case in the so-called close times of so mean actions against my allies

      I can cite the opposite example - noble actions against enemies, and this enemy was none other than the Russians. We are talking about the events of 1807 - 1808. in Lisbon, when the squadron of Admiral Senyavin "with his pants down" was caught by a British squadron. The British did not attack, but preferred to negotiate for six months, after which they allowed the Russians under their own flag to come to Portsmouth, where they were disarmed.
      1. Elturisto
        Elturisto 22 December 2019 10: 07
        -2
        Yeah, well ... noble British. England pursued its own interests, wanting to embroil RI and FI, which ultimately happened in 1812. So it’s not Senyavin with your pants down and you.
    5. maden.usmanow
      maden.usmanow 21 December 2019 19: 56
      +5
      Haha The British were left face to face against Germany.
      On 1 1.
      It was a matter of survival.
    6. mmaxx
      mmaxx 26 December 2019 16: 28
      +1
      Why are the French allies? At that time they were allies of the Germans. Slightly neutral. Well, Hitler wanted to unite Europe. Because not much offended France.
      The British acted very correctly. They just asked: who are you for? If you are with us, please. The French were against it. They also had the audacity to take offense. They were even offered to leave and defend themselves from the war in the United States. Moreover, they did not take offense at the Americans who did the same. It turned out to be possible for them. D'Artagnan tree sticks.
  3. 72jora72
    72jora72 21 December 2019 06: 39
    0
    By the way about these events, today Europeans practically don’t know what.
  4. tlauicol
    tlauicol 21 December 2019 06: 51
    +8
    And where are the hits in Brittany and the death?
    1. Comrade
      22 December 2019 03: 32
      +5
      Quote: Tlauicol
      And where are the hits in Brittany and the death?

      It will be considered in a separate article, where we consider everything in detail.
      There is reason to believe that the generally accepted version of the death of the battleship "Bretagne" does not correspond to reality.
      1. Elturisto
        Elturisto 22 December 2019 10: 09
        +1
        Good article thanks. The behavior of the French, as well as the low level of air defense of the most important Navy of France, some 75-90 mm, in an insignificant amount, is surprising.
        1. Comrade
          23 December 2019 01: 27
          +1
          Quote: ElTuristo
          The behavior of the French is surprising

          There everything was not tied up by Jensul, but he was just a cautious official in the admiral's uniform.
          Quote: ElTuristo
          as well as the low level of air defense of the most important French Navy - some 75-90 mm, in negligible amounts

          The base was just under construction, much remained to be established. By the way, even the pier was built less than half.
  5. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 21 December 2019 07: 09
    +14
    Thanks to the author, read in one go! Sincerely wish to drop in at such works more often !!!
    Regards, Vlad!
    1. vladcub
      vladcub 21 December 2019 09: 43
      +6
      Namesake, I agree: double work is good. After Andrei from Chelyabinsk stopped pampering us with work on the history of the fleet, a peculiar vacuum formed. He took a little-known, and therefore an interesting topic.
    2. Dimka75
      Dimka75 21 December 2019 13: 53
      +4
      After joking jokes about the last series of articles about cruisers, this author reads much better, wonderful.
    3. Comrade
      22 December 2019 03: 36
      +2
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      Thanks to the author, read in one go!

      Thank you very much, Vlad, for your kind words!

      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      Sincerely wish to drop in at such works more often !!!

      I would be glad, but such a small volume of work takes many tens of hours. An article on the death of "Bretagne" is currently in the works, but this year, probably, it will not be possible to finish it.
  6. tlauicol
    tlauicol 21 December 2019 07: 11
    +5
    not enough losses for evaluating "figures and facts"
    1. Comrade
      22 December 2019 03: 38
      +2
      Quote: Tlauicol
      not enough losses for evaluating "figures and facts"

      Sorry, I didn’t understand what kind of losses do you mean?
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 22 December 2019 05: 23
        +1
        Quote: Comrade
        Quote: Tlauicol
        not enough losses for evaluating "figures and facts"

        Sorry, I didn’t understand what kind of losses do you mean?

        Manpower, human
        1. Comrade
          22 December 2019 05: 32
          +2
          Oh, got it.
          There is no single answer.
          Some sources take into account casualties on July 3 and 6, in others the losses are differentiated by date, but the total number of irretrievable losses (dead and died from wounds) is given. In the third, separately killed and separately wounded are indicated at the time of the end of the battle; in the fourth, those who died on July 3 are added to those who died later from wounds, etc.
          Thus, there is enough material there, but in order to sort things out, you need a few hundred more words.
          I tried not to go too far beyond 2 words.
          French wikipedia has the following plate,

          but, taking into account the above, this tablet is too general. The issue of casualties in the battle at Mers al-Kebir is somewhat more serious, and there you need to understand in detail.
  7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 December 2019 07: 29
    +12
    Just super :) I read it diagonally so far, since smart is still not very convenient, but the article is fire. In the evening I will savor :)))
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 21 December 2019 15: 21
      +3
      Andrei, good afternoon! hi And when will you come back to us and head the gatherings in our company? It's empty without you. request smile
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 December 2019 17: 22
        +2
        Greetings, Constantine! hi drinks
        Quote: Sea Cat
        And when you come back to us

        I hope not soon - I am currently working by profession :)))) Periodic laying out of individual materials and rare comments are all that is available to me.
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 22 December 2019 17: 32
          +1
          Hope not soon


          "... I am sincerely sorry, Your Majesty." (c) request drinks
          1. Wildcat
            Wildcat 22 December 2019 17: 48
            +3
            Quote: Sea Cat
            Hope not soon


            "... I am sincerely sorry, Your Majesty." (c) request drinks

            hi
            Join us!
            Woeful cheers ..... recourse
          2. Catfish
            Catfish 22 December 2019 17: 55
            +2
            Wildcat (Wildket) Today, 17:48
            +1
            Quote: Sea Cat
            Hope not soon


            "... I'm truly sorry, Your Majesty." (c) request drinks

            hi
            Join us!
            Woeful cheers ..... recourse


            Andrew, look around, grieve both Wild and Sea Cats. Have pity on the animals! wink
    2. Comrade
      22 December 2019 03: 43
      +6
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Just super :) I read it diagonally so far, since smart is still not very convenient, but the article is fire.

      Thank you very much, dear colleague, for your appreciation.
      I forgot to attach a table with the ammunition consumption from the French side. I know you love such things :-)

      Alas, the British did not succeed in collecting the same, unfortunately the archive wants money for copies of reports from the commanders of British ships. And considerable :-(
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 December 2019 17: 15
        +3
        Greetings, dear colleague!
        Quote: Comrade
        I forgot to attach a table with the ammunition consumption from the French side. I know you love such things :-)

        I just love it, thanks a lot :))))
        In general, according to the article ... Well, what can I say? You brought down on me a layer of interesting and inaccessible information to me, so I’m happy and in it :) I have never seriously been interested in Mers-el Kebir, but re-reading the standard description of those events, wandering from one source to another, was pretty tired - and suddenly such a gift from you :)))) And I knew that there would be an interesting article, I was expecting a lot, knowing the traditionally high level of your materials - and still you managed to surprise me, it’s a real New Year present :)))) hi
        I completely agree with your interpretation of those events - in my opinion Zhansul did not behave in the best way, and I completely agree that the French did not give the British any reason to seize the fleet
        Special thanks for the performance data of the shooting of American battleships. Dear Valentin, do you happen to know by any chance - were firing at the standing or towed shields?
        1. Comrade
          23 December 2019 02: 03
          +1
          Dear Andrey!
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          in my opinion, Zhansul did not behave in the best way, and I completely agree that the French did not give the British any reason to force capture the fleet

          Yes, Jensul surprised.
          He personally ordered the fighters not to take off without his order. And what prevented him, as soon as the first enemy reconnaissance appeared over the base, to declare airspace over the harbor a no-fly zone, as it is now customary to express it, and report this (to avoid undesirable air incidents) to Sommerville?
          And to reinforce their words, raise a couple of dozen fighter jets into the air.
          Next.
          Domestic sources have traditionally claimed that seaplanes from two battleships were allegedly removed so as not to risk them.
          In fact, according to French sources, these four seaplanes were at a low start and were only waiting for an order to fly towards the English compound for reconnaissance purposes, and then - attention - to adjust the fire of French battleships. However, the order did not follow, no one went anywhere to adjust the fire, and the French battleships hit in the white light, like a pretty penny.
          And what prevented Jensul from giving the order to put a smoke screen? After all, I saw that English planes were hanging overhead for hours, and perfectly understood why.
          By the way, here is a photo of the smoke screen set by the English destroyers. This is after the volleys of the coastal battery began to go down better.
          The picture was taken from "Hood".


          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          and you don’t know about it by accident - were firing at standing or towed shields?

          The shields were 140 by 40 feet, and they were slowly towed (either at the source) by another battleship, or a tugboat, or a destroyer.
          The instruction for battleships allowed the use of a standard seaplane during firing practice. But whether the shooting by planes in the training American shooting described in the article was corrected, I do not know.
  8. bubalik
    bubalik 21 December 2019 08: 07
    +9
    Thanks to the author!
    ,,, so many shells, such a fuss laughing
    ,,, Guggenberger on U-81 fired four torpedoes and voila lol the battleship Malaya was damaged, the Ark Royal was sunk. feel
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 21 December 2019 12: 40
      +1
      Sergey, hello! hi It's funny, but on a different branch, yesterday, I made exactly the same argument with respect to the actions of the German raiders, only mentioned other boat commanders. We think alike, my friend. drinks
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 December 2019 12: 46
      +7
      Really. Why would the army need anti-tank artillery, if one partisan can derail a whole train of brand-new tanks? :)))
      1. bubalik
        bubalik 21 December 2019 12: 52
        +3
        belay , well, if there were as many aircraft carriers as tanks what then your example is indicative yes
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 December 2019 13: 49
          +4
          Did you try to count the number of submarines that the Germans put into the ocean? :)))) Did you try to count the submarines in pieces and in the crews? :) No, they didn’t. Because to say that the submarine was sunk by an aircraft carrier is one impression, but to say that the Germans, having built a thousand submarines drowned as many as three aircraft carriers and three more escort ships, the impression will be different
          1. bubalik
            bubalik 21 December 2019 14: 02
            +3
            Andrey, I will not argue with you stop (because you are a great specialist in the field of ships and naval battles hi )
            ,,, but nevertheless, submarines sank more ships and ships than aircraft carriers, base aircraft and surface ships combined.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 December 2019 17: 19
              +3
              Quote: bubalik
              ,, but nevertheless, submarines sank more ships and ships than aircraft carriers, base aircraft and surface ships combined.

              It goes without saying :))) Because the submarine is an ideal weapon against the enemy merchant fleet.
              But in submarine fleets, it was possible to do this only when their actions were provided by other forces of the fleet. The American Navy managed to drive the Japanese out of their defensive period, returning the advanced bases to submariners - at that time the massacre on Japanese communications began. And the Germans succeeded exactly until the Allies built an adequate anti-aircraft defense system - and then they paid one submarine for the sunken transport.
        2. Catfish
          Catfish 21 December 2019 15: 27
          +3
          Seryozha, the war would last a couple more years and the Americans would rivet more aircraft carriers than there were tanks of all the belligerents combined (we do not consider Japanese tanks for tanks). laughing
          1. bubalik
            bubalik 21 December 2019 15: 33
            +4
            ,, by the end of the war, their industry put into operation as much as they drowned drinks
    3. Comrade
      22 December 2019 03: 46
      +2
      Quote: bubalik
      Thanks to the author!

      And thank you for your interest in the topic.
      Quote: bubalik
      Guggenberger fired four torpedoes on U-81 and voila lol the battleship Malaya damaged, Ark Royal sank

      That's right !
  9. tlauicol
    tlauicol 21 December 2019 08: 51
    +3
    In a number of sources, getting into the stern of a dunkirk is described differently: flooding of compartments, damage to steering drives, underwater hole of the outlet. But in the photo for the article it can be seen that the shell went much higher, if these are the photos
    1. Comrade
      22 December 2019 03: 54
      +2
      Quote: Tlauicol
      In a number of sources, getting into the stern of a dunkirk is described differently: flooding of compartments, damage to steering drives, underwater hole of the outlet.

      This is fake or alternative.
      In domestic sources, there are two unreliable descriptions of the description of the hits of the English 15 '' shells on French ships.
      In the first case, as you correctly noted, for some reason the projectile flight path was changed, and the hole from surface transformed into underwater.
      In the second case, one hit in "Provence" was just someone once invented. After that, the invention was replicated in Russian-language books and articles.
  10. fa2998
    fa2998 21 December 2019 09: 16
    +4
    Quote: saigon
    foul actions against their allies.

    Yes, they were not allies! The French surrendered to the Germans, and their fleet would have helped the Germans a lot. They did not have large ships. And what a "treacherous" attack, the French were offered to continue fighting against the Germans, but already based in Great Britain. But they preferred to lie under the Germans -ihnie volleys in the direction of the British is in favor of the Germans.

    As in a war, we take out something that is not within our power, we destroy it so that the enemy would not get it! hi
    RS-Nekory ships of Poland, Holland, etc. all the war fought against the Germans.
    1. saigon
      saigon 21 December 2019 12: 23
      +3
      How beautiful it is to fight against the Germans! It’s just great, but in what legal status do the sailors of France end up, the military of the surrendered country, probably mercenaries?
      And their volleys in the British, notice in response to the volleys of the British is already the height of arrogance.
      France was not at war with Britain, and the British were never embarrassed to stoke the ships of the French and kill their sailors, which reminds me of the feat of Admiral Horatio in shooting the Danish fleet and shooting at Copenhagen.
    2. vladcub
      vladcub 21 December 2019 14: 37
      +3
      In the magazine: "Soviet Warrior" I once read about a Polish patrol, in September 1939 he ended up in Tallinn. The Estonians took the navigator's maps and ammunition from the ship, put up 2 sentries, and the Poles disarmed the sentries at night and took them. The navigator guided the ship based on the stars and a randomly preserved scheme of coastal lighthouses.
      Sentinels released in England, but they decided not to return to Estonia
  11. igordok
    igordok 21 December 2019 09: 21
    +6
    Thanks, interesting.
    The other day I came across a photo with a signature. - "1942. French squadron, sunk by the British in Toulon to prevent it from falling into the hands of the German army, 27.11"
    I had to remember that the attacks were in 1940, and in 1942. the French themselves sank their ships when the Germans entered Toulon.
    1. Comrade
      22 December 2019 04: 34
      +3
      Quote: igordok
      Thank you interesting

      Thank you, glad that I liked it.
      Quote: igordok
      The other day I came across a photo with a signature. - "1942. French squadron sunk by the British in Toulon to prevent it from falling into the hands of the German army

      The French promised to do the same to the British. Like, if there are attempts by the Germans to pick up the ships. we will sink them.
      But Churchill fell into hysteria, in addition de Gaulle twisted it. Like, look, the Germans will take the fleet.
      I would like to ask Churchill if the Germans failed to capture the French fleet in 1942, why would they be able to do this in 1940?
      1. Cyer
        Cyer 23 December 2019 08: 50
        -2
        I would like to ask Churchill if the Germans failed to capture the French fleet in 1942, why would they be able to do this in 1940?


        Ummm ... some kind of weird logic you have. Did the British know in 1940 what the Germans could not do in 1942? 2 year difference doesn't bother you?
  12. Olgovich
    Olgovich 21 December 2019 10: 48
    +4
    Tragedy, of course.

    The British were forced to act this way, saving themselves: they still lacked the Frenchman. battleships in the service of the Nazis.

    The French command is fully responsible for the victims: they offered a decent way out for a joint struggle with Germany, they actually preferred cooperation with Germany
    1. saigon
      saigon 21 December 2019 12: 32
      +1
      What are the battleships of France under the German flag? What are you talking about ? The French in Toulon flooded the ships, and how will the Germans acquire French battleships in the fortieth year in North Africa? Rommel with his panzers will call in battleships (though a little later), but the Germans did not try to imagine the time for the development of the miraculously acquired battleships, and where do the sailors take the hans for these lenkors?
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 21 December 2019 12: 40
        -3
        Quote: saigon
        What are the battleships of France under the German flag? What are you talking about ?

        About the article. And what about you?
        Quote: saigon
        how thus in the fortieth year in North Africa will the Germans acquire the French battleships?

        Vichy puppet of Germany.
        Quote: saigon
        and the Germans did not try to imagine the term for the development of the miraculously acquired battleships, and where do the sailors take the Hans for these Lenkors?

        "Problem", yes ...

        Find examples of not just transferred, but raised scuttled enemy ships used already with their crews. For example, BPK "Prut (aka Medzhidie)
        1. Corrie sanders
          Corrie sanders 21 December 2019 21: 47
          +2
          according to a number of Western sources, Churchill had verified information from intelligence that, under certain conditions, Etat Francais (the French state of Petain) becomes a full-fledged ally of the Reich with all the consequences, the main one for Churchill was the transition of a powerful and modern French fleet to the camp of the enemies of England. Against the Kriegsmarine + Regia Marina + Dai-Nippon Teikoku Kaigun coalition, the British were left alone in minority and gloom. At that time, the US position was not predicted at all, and the USSR was an ally of Germany, so Sir Winnie-the-Pouh made the unambiguous and correct decision to preempt and destroy a very probable enemy in unfavorable conditions for him, and in general turned out to be right as always
      2. also clean
        also clean 21 December 2019 20: 10
        0
        Well, actually then Lcr Strasbourg escaped from North Africa - by the way to Toulon! And there might well have been captured by the Germans. The fact that Admiral Darlan will give the order to the fleet in Toulon to flood no one could know! Darlan was still that one !! But the fact that the French refused to surrender at least ammunition and castles from guns - they are to blame. In war as in war
  13. Undecim
    Undecim 21 December 2019 11: 04
    +10
    The combination of objective and subjective reasons prevented the French armed forces, despite the resources and capabilities, from repelling the treacherous attack of yesterday’s ally. A considerable part of the blame for the tragedy, according to the author, lies with the French commander, who at the crucial moment showed himself not as a combat commander of the squadron, but as an official in the admiral's uniform, which, in essence, he was.
    Articles describing such events should be preceded by an analysis of the military-political situation prevailing at the time of the events. In this case, the thesis of a "treacherous attack on an ally" is at least controversial.
    On June 22, 1940, fascist Germany and France, represented by Premier Pétain, signed the Compiegne Armistice. The Pétain government agreed to a complete cessation of resistance, the dismemberment of France and the occupation of about 2/3 of the French territory (including Paris) by fascist German troops, disarmament and demobilization of the French army and navy , with the exception of units "necessary to maintain order," the surrender of all weapons to the fascist German command, reimbursement of expenses for the maintenance of the German occupation army, etc.
    As you can see, the former ally, in fact, is already becoming an adversary.
    As for the fleet, it had to be demobilized and placed in ports under the supervision of the occupying forces. Formally, in accordance with Article VIII, the Germans pledged not to use it for military purposes.
    However, as subsequent events show, the Germans had slightly different plans. As early as December 1940, the Attila plan was being developed to eliminate Vichy France. The development of the Attila plan was the Anton plan. The idea itself has not changed, the participation of Italians has been added. Part of this plan was Operation Leela, the capture of the French fleet.
    Therefore, the British had every reason to fear that the French fleet, the fourth in the world, would fall into the hands of the Germans. And the assurances of Petain and Admiral Darlan in this case, against the backdrop of the policies of the French government, did not inspire confidence.
    In November 1942, immediately after the Allied landings in North Africa, the Germans implemented the Anton plan and seized the remaining formally independent territory. The troops of Vichy France surrendered without a fight. The only general to give the order to resist, J. M. de Latre de Tassigny, was arrested by his own officers.
    The fleet, however, did not fall into the hands of the Germans. A total of 77 ships were sunk or blown up. The French lost 3 battleships (flagship "Strasbourg", "Dunkirk" and "Provence"), the hydro-carrier "Commandan Test", 4 heavy and 3 light cruisers, 16 destroyers, 14 destroyers, 15 submarines. The Germans captured 4 submarines, 3 destroyers and four dozen small ships, the weapons of many of them were destroyed as a result of sabotage of French sailors.
    Some of the ships did not obey the order of self-flooding and managed to leave the harbor surrounded by Germans: the submarines Kazabyanka and Marsuen reached Algeria, Glorieu - Orana, Iris - Barcelona. The pilot Leonor Fresnel also managed to get out of Toulon and reach Algeria.

    But it was already November 1942. Nobody could guarantee the same development of events in July 1940.
    So the British had every reason for fears and corresponding actions.
    1. vladcub
      vladcub 21 December 2019 14: 43
      +2
      V.N., I am waiting for your comment-supplement
    2. Comrade
      22 December 2019 04: 39
      +1
      Quote: Undecim
      the British had every reason to fear that the French fleet would fall into German hands. And the assurances of Petain and Admiral Darlan in this case, against the backdrop of the policies of the French government, did not inspire confidence.

      These are Churchill's problems.
      The criterion of truth is fact. The facts are such that the Germans did not capture the French fleet.
      Because the French flooded him so that he would not go to Germany.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 22 December 2019 09: 30
        +2
        The criterion of truth is fact. The facts are such that the Germans did not capture the French fleet.
        Because the French flooded him so that he would not go to Germany.

        Which fleet and in what year? The events of 1940, and the facts - 1942. Churchill did not have a time machine, therefore, taking into account the facts of 1940, he acted.
        You already decide who you are - the propagandist or historian.
        1. 27091965
          27091965 22 December 2019 12: 36
          +2
          Quote: Undecim
          Churchill didn’t have a time machine, so, taking into account the facts of 1940, he acted. You can decide who you are - the propagandist or historian.


          There are many publications describing this event. If for example we take the work of Alec de Montmorency published in 1943 and P. Schubert of 1942, we can notice that they show opposite points of view. In this case, the author, when writing an article, focuses on the information that he has. Therefore, you should not draw such conclusions. We do not defend scientific degrees.
          In my opinion, the goal of the British was the destruction of the French fleet. The French simply did not have enough time allotted in the ultimatum to make a decision.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 December 2019 16: 16
          +2
          Quote: Undecim
          You already decide who you are - the propagandist or historian

          From the point of view of history as a science of rights, it is Valentine. History, as you know, does not know the subjunctive moods, and in fact the British decided on unprovoked aggression, and the French did not give their ships to the Germans
        3. Comrade
          23 December 2019 02: 14
          +2
          Quote: Undecim
          You already decide who you are - the propagandist or historian.

          And you first understand that there is propaganda.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 23 December 2019 02: 49
            0
            And you first understand that there is propaganda.
            You definition by Lasswell, by Jeffkins or Taylor? You fit all three.
      2. Cyer
        Cyer 23 December 2019 08: 52
        -2
        These are Churchill's problems.
        - This is the problem of the French leadership. Not the British concluded the Compiegne truce with the Germans.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 December 2019 16: 13
      +2
      Quote: Undecim
      The Petain government agreed to a complete cessation of resistance, the dismemberment of France and the occupation of about 2/3 of French territory (including Paris) by fascist German troops, disarmament and demobilization of the French army and navy, with the exception of units "necessary to maintain order", surrender to the German fascist command of all weapons, reimbursement of costs for the maintenance of the German occupation army, etc.
      As you can see, the former ally, in fact, is already becoming an adversary.

      Forgive me, but I do not see it point blank. From the foregoing it follows that France, in fact, capitulates to Hitler and turns into a tiny "sovereign" completely incapable of resisting German aggression in the future, if any follows. But the fact that France is becoming the ENTIRE of England from the Compiegne Agreement does not follow from the word "in any way".
      Quote: Undecim
      Therefore, the British had every reason to fear that the French fleet, the fourth in the world, would fall into the hands of the Germans.

      Sorry, but here I see a logical error. The fall of the French fleet into the hands of the Germans depended not on German plans, but on French actions. And the French did not give any reason to believe that they were able to transfer ships to Hitler.
      Yes, the French surrendered on bondage. But they no longer had any choice - they lost the war with a bang, and they could not stop the Germans from occupying 2/3, 3/4 or the entire territory of France, excluding the colonies.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 22 December 2019 16: 46
        +4
        Sorry, but I do not see this point blank.
        Sorry, but here I see a logical error.
        Because you are not a statesman and politician, and the position of prime minister is clearly not shining for you.
        Churchill, as the head of the state, which at that time fought alone against the Axis countries and whose existence depended directly on whether the fleet was able to prevent the invasion of the metropolis and ensure its supply, had no right to "play daisy" and guess - the French would give the fourth largest navy in the world to the Germans or not. Formally, such a possibility existed and threatened to catastrophe, it is quite natural that the British followed measures to prevent this possibility.
        And your reasoning is an anachronism of a layman with a propaganda bias, such as "insidious Albion". He is not insidious, he fought for his existence in this case.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 December 2019 17: 32
          +3
          Quote: Undecim
          Because you are not a statesman and politician, and the position of prime minister is clearly not shining for you.

          Does not shine, I agree. Yes, I myself would have refused
          Quote: Undecim
          Churchill, as the head of state, which at that time fought alone against the Axis countries and whose existence directly depended on the fleet being able to prevent the invasion of the metropolis and ensure its supply

          Unprovoked attacked the former allies, although they did not deserve it at all. In the name of the highest British interests, yes, no one argues with that :)
          Quote: Undecim
          And your reasoning is an anachronism of a layman with a propaganda bias, such as "insidious Albion".

          Undecim, I pointed out to you 2 logical mistakes in your reasoning. They consisted in the fact that the Compiegne agreement did not make the French enemies of England, and that your conclusion "the French could surrender the fleet because the Germans had plans to capture it" is illogical.
          In fact, the French were guilty of only one thing - they had a large fleet. This made them a victim of British aggression. And this is a historical fact. One can discuss how forced this aggression was for the British, but the fact is that the problem was not in French intentions, but in British fears.
          And about the "insidious Albion" you came up with everything yourself, you shouldn't reproach me for not saying or writing.
          1. Cyer
            Cyer 23 December 2019 08: 22
            -1
            They consisted in the fact that the Compiegne Agreement did not make the French enemies of England,
            - but ceased to be an ally. This alone makes the thesis about the "treacherous attack" by the British incorrect and, in fact. propaganda.

            and the fact that your conclusion "the French could surrender the fleet because the Germans had plans to capture it" is illogical.
            - why couldn't?

            In fact, the French were guilty of only one thing - they had a large fleet.
            - the French were to blame "only for" that they concluded the Compiegne truce with Germany, as a result of which most of France was occupieda, and in unoccupied territory created puppet, Nazi-controlledstate.

            And really, why did Britain have to regard France as a potential adversary?
        2. vladcub
          vladcub 22 December 2019 18: 32
          +3
          B. Na., I agree with you that Churchill did not have the right to take risks. After Dunkirk, the British army was, to put it mildly, not up to par and just to play tails
      2. Cyer
        Cyer 23 December 2019 08: 56
        +2
        But here is the fact that France becomes an OPPONENT of England from the Compiegne Agreement
        - it at least ceases to be an ally of England. And it would be the height of naivety to be 100% sure that the puppet government after the Compiegne armistice will not sign any other treaty with the "host" state that would be directed specifically against Britain.
  14. vladcub
    vladcub 21 December 2019 11: 59
    +3
    Valentine, purely out of harm: "Somerville ordered to open fire at 17,15" and then we read: "17,54 first opened fire" Resolution ". So when the English opened fire: at 17,15 or 17,54.
    And if in the case, then the paddling pools burst to the fullest. The British as in the teachings to clog them.
    Biplanes do not differ in high speed, a maximum of 150 km, and from a height of 60 m. ANY machine gun will get there. Mithrallesa did not differ in special rate of fire, but could manage with a biplane.
    1. vladcub
      vladcub 21 December 2019 12: 04
      +3
      The operation at Meers el-Kebir reminds me of Pearl Harbar: the Americans could not organize resistance to Japanese aviation, and here the paddling pool sat and clapped their ears
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 21 December 2019 12: 54
        -2
        It is a pity that it was not you, Svyatoslav, who commanded the French squadron. You would surely organize heroic resistance instead of "flapping ears."
        1. vladcub
          vladcub 21 December 2019 14: 47
          +3
          V. N. Agree that the French had the opportunity to organize resistance, but they did not.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 21 December 2019 14: 59
            -2
            All in your hands. I look forward to your comment describing the organization of effective actions of the French fleet against the British fleet.
            1. vladcub
              vladcub 21 December 2019 19: 43
              +5
              V.N, the cons are not mine. I express my opinion. It is difficult to withdraw the entire fleet from the bay, but part of the ships could be withdrawn. What the French did: six destroyers.
              But you can organize air defense. I proceed from what was written by the author: the British used biplanes from a height of not more than 60. With intense obstruction, if you don’t shoot down, it will hinder mining, perhaps, but the text does not say that the French air defense offered serious resistance. Of course you yourself read what means of air defense the French possessed + ship's air defense
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 21 December 2019 20: 44
                +2
                V.N, the cons are not mine.
                I didn’t think yours. These are my friends.
                As for the actions of Admiral Zhansuly, it is wrong to evaluate them based only on a description of the hostilities, as the author does.
                Just as an understanding of the British’s actions requires an analysis of the current military-political situation, so an understanding of the actions of Zhansul requires an analysis of the political situation in the French leadership at the time of the events, taking into account that the fleet in Mers al-Kebir was not in a combat-ready state, but was being prepared to disarm in accordance with the terms of the Compiegne Armistice. No one was going to fight the base, nor was they going to fight with anyone.
                Zhansul was instructed to withdraw the fleet to the United States or to flood in the event of an attempt to capture it. But on the part of the British, no one expected such actions. And when connection N approached Mers-el-Kebir and negotiations began, then the most contradictory information came from higher authorities and followed instructions that completely did not take into account the situation at the scene. All this led to the fact that time was simply lost and the decision to withdraw the fleet was made too late.
                1. vladcub
                  vladcub 22 December 2019 18: 02
                  +2
                  It always turns out this way when there are conflicting directions from above.
                2. Comrade
                  23 December 2019 03: 15
                  +2
                  Quote: Undecim
                  the fleet in Mers-el-Kebir was not in combat readiness, but was preparing for disarmament in accordance with the terms of the Compiegne Armistice

                  In Mers al-Kebir there was a compound of the French fleet Force de Raid, which, if it was preparing for disarmament, then proceed to it, unlike coastal batteries, as of July 3, 1940. not going to. No gun locks were removed, no ammunition was unloaded, no fire control devices were dismantled, no fuel was drained, and crew members were not demobilized.
                  Quote: Undecim
                  No one was going to fight the base, nor was they going to fight with anyone.

                  Not this way.
                  В nine hours in the morning Vice Admiral Zhensul sent an order to the ships of the formation as follows: "The English fleet came to present an ultimatum, to prepare to respond to force by force"
                  The order to return the coastal batteries to a combat-ready state, that is, to install the locks removed the day before, was given by Zhensul in a timely manner, in the morning.

                  Quote: Undecim
                  from the higher authorities the most contradictory information proceeded

                  Nobody fooled Jensul, this is a myth.

                  Quote: Undecim
                  All this led to the fact that time was simply lost and the decision to withdraw the fleet was made too late.

                  Colleague, you reason logically, but since the basis is incorrect information, your conclusions are false.
                  Mentioned by you decision was taken in a timely manner. Another thing is that his execution dragged on. But here you need to know the French character, no one is ever in a hurry under any circumstances.
                  1. Liam
                    Liam 23 December 2019 03: 30
                    0
                    Quote: Comrade
                    But here you need to know the French character

                    And what is wrong with the French character (of which you apparently consider yourself an expert)?
            2. Senior seaman
              Senior seaman 22 December 2019 18: 18
              +1
              A little not that fight, but something like that, from our esteemed colleague Andrei from a harsh city.
              http://alternathistory.com/vive-la-france-bitva-za-dakar/
              1. Comrade
                23 December 2019 03: 34
                +2
                Quote: Senior Sailor
                A little not that fight, but something like that, from our esteemed colleague Andrei from a harsh city. http://alternathistory.com/vive-la-france-bitva-za-dakar/

                Great, catchy work. Glorious was the time, the AI ​​site then shone.
            3. Comrade
              23 December 2019 05: 06
              +1
              Quote: Undecim
              I look forward to your comment describing the organization of effective actions of the French fleet against the British fleet.

              Do you mind trying to reconstruct a possible course of events?
              In this case, I am interested in the theoretical aspect, whether the French were really doomed, or still something could be done with the hope of a different outcome.
              The British opened fire on 16:54 local time, sunset on July 3 there in 20:23.
              To begin with, figuratively speaking, we blind the English Cyclops.
              There are three English spotter aircraft; fifty fighter jets can be set against them. If not enough, you can call for help from Spain. French aviation is based there (the same one that bombed British ships in Gibraltar the next day).
              After we put a smoke screen over the harbor. There is reason to believe that the French smokescreen is no worse than the British. And if the English made the French coastal battery fire ineffective, we have the right to expect the same from the French smoke screen.
              Then we lift four French seaplanes into the air, they can, if necessary, adjust the fire of coastal batteries on the English observing destroyers.
              From Oran we call the 14th submarine division ("Diane", "Ariane", "Danae", and "Euridice"). Englishmen "hang" over Oran, they see it and Sommerville is informed.
              Three and a half hours pass, the sun has set. Minesweepers during this time had to deal with five magnetic mines, and now, while the French submarines occupy positions to launch an attack on the English ships, you can try to escape to Toulon under the cover of darkness.
    2. Olgovich
      Olgovich 21 December 2019 13: 55
      +1
      Quote: vladcub
      And if in the case, then the paddling pools burst to the fullest. The British as in the teachings to clog them.

      I would say that they didn’t want to fight, especially with the British, because they were their allies against Hitler yesterday. and Hitler for a couple of weeks they did not learn to love .....
      1. vladcub
        vladcub 21 December 2019 14: 49
        +2
        Olgovich, on the whole I agree with you: the French did not really want to resist
    3. Comrade
      22 December 2019 04: 44
      +2
      Quote: vladcub
      Valentine, purely out of harm: "Somerville ordered to open fire at 17,15" and then we read: "17,54 first opened fire" Resolution ". So when the English opened fire: at 17,15 or 17,54.

      Svyatoslav, everything is fine. Sommerville gave the order, but the implementation of the latter did not begin immediately.
      Quote: vladcub
      And if in the case, then the paddles burst to the fullest

      This is so, but events could develop differently, if in the place of Zhansul a combat and enterprising admiral appeared.
      Quote: vladcub
      Biplanes do not differ in high speed, a maximum of 150 km, and from a height of 60 m. ANY machine gun will get there.

      The preparation of the anti-aircraft gunners was, to put it mildly, not up to par.
      1. vladcub
        vladcub 22 December 2019 18: 09
        +1
        The fact that the preparation of air defense specialists is worthless is clear. This indirectly indicates that Zhansul is not a combat commander.
  15. Catfish
    Catfish 21 December 2019 12: 43
    +3
    Wonderful article, thanks, Valentine! good It was read excitedly, despite the fact that this story had been read more than once before. We look forward to new meetings. hi
    1. Comrade
      22 December 2019 04: 48
      +4
      Quote: Sea Cat
      Wonderful article, thanks, Valentine!

      Thank you very much, Konstantin, for the tip. I did my best.
      Quote: Sea Cat
      We look forward to new meetings.

      After the New Year I’ll try again to post an article on Russian battleships. Perhaps this time will pass.
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 22 December 2019 16: 28
        +1
        Good evening, Valentine. hi

        And what was the problem last time with the Russian battleships, why didn't it pass? In my opinion, even the "politics" of that time will not be banned now. An interesting train of thought of people who hack to death this or that material. But, be that as it may, I will expect something "tasty" from you. smile drinks
        1. Comrade
          23 December 2019 02: 25
          +2
          My respect, Constantine!
          Quote: Sea Cat
          And what was the problem last time with the Russian battleships, why didn’t it?

          The formal reason is the abbreviation GUKiS, supposedly this does not exist in the Russian language. The link to the Wikipedia article, which says what it is, had no effect.
          The true reason why the work went to the basket, I do not know.
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 23 December 2019 02: 48
            +1
            Verily, certain human deeds are obscured and obscured by darkness. It remains only to regret and hope that this was a temporary clouding of consciousness.
  16. Octopus
    Octopus 21 December 2019 15: 00
    +1
    Plus

    Of course, it would be better to clean the politot, but the rest is written in detail, thanks.
    1. Comrade
      22 December 2019 04: 55
      +2
      Quote: Octopus
      written in detail, thanks.

      Thank you for your kind words, colleague.
  17. Tests
    Tests 21 December 2019 16: 53
    +2
    vladcub (Svyatoslav), dear, I have to correct you. Estonians in September 1939 interned and partially disarmed the Polish submarine "Orel" damaged by depth charges of the Germans. People in Poland remembered the feat of real military sailors of Poland. I don't know how it is now ... Based in Great Britain in 1940, the "Eagle" sank a German transport going to Norway. In the summer of 1940, the boat went missing, the place of its death is not known today. Best regards, Testov.
    1. vladcub
      vladcub 21 December 2019 19: 10
      +3
      Thanks for the clarification. I read it about 35 years ago. Perhaps you are right, at about the same time I read about some Polish ship that fought in the British Navy. And I combined both stories.
    2. Catfish
      Catfish 22 December 2019 16: 20
      0
      Eugene, hello and good evening. hi
      The film "Eagle" was filmed in Poland. I saw this film and watched it with pleasure. In the sixties, he went to the box office throughout the Union. It described in detail the escape of the boat from Tallinn, the sinking of the first transport in the Baltic, and the impudent passage at night on the surface of the straits. Take a look if you haven't.
  18. Cyer
    Cyer 21 December 2019 21: 32
    +1
    to repulse the treacherous attack of yesterday's ally


    Well, here's a good article from the point of view of the reliability of the data itself, but why was it necessary to insert this ridiculous politot into it? Well, what a "treacherous attack" if:
    a) at the time of the operation, France was no longer an ally of Great Britain?
    b) The British have previously issued a warning with more than a rich selection of options?

    Does the author know the meaning of the word "treacherous"?
  19. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 22 December 2019 10: 11
    +3
    good Five! I welcome, dear Valentine hi Material plus fat - very interesting. Amid the disappearance, albeit for good reason, of the respected A&H, your article is like a breath of fresh air on the topic of naval history yes We look forward to continuing hi drinks
    1. Comrade
      23 December 2019 05: 21
      +2
      My respect, dear Andrei, I am glad to meet you!
      Quote: Rurikovich
      We look forward to continuing

      The death of "Bretagne" is next. There are some hints, it may turn out that the real cause of the death of the battleship differs from the current one. But this is preliminary, the work has not been completed yet.
      Do not consider it a pun, but work prevents me from working. Today is Sunday, and the authorities asked me to go to work, I had to agree.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 23 December 2019 06: 27
        +1
        Quote: Comrade
        Do not consider it a pun, but work prevents me from working.

        AiCh also "interferes" with work on VO wink hi feel
        We are all people, therefore, personally, I never demand anything on time. In any case, reading your materials is always very interesting and informative. drinks
        And given that I’m interested in the history of naval battles as soon as I learned to read, the tragedy of the French Navy in WWII for some reason passed me by side, the acquaintance went only in general terms. Therefore, in any case, I will wait for continuation, at least in a year or two smile
        With all respect, Andrew hi
  20. Elturisto
    Elturisto 22 December 2019 10: 20
    0
    There is a good monograph "Dunkirk" and "Strasbourg". There is interesting information about the history of ships of this type, as well as descriptions of the breakthrough of "Strasbourg" to Toulon. So the authors of the monograph give the opinion that "Strasbourg" during the breakthrough was close to "Arc Royal", at a distance of effective fire, including even medium artillery -130mm, but did not open fire.
    1. Comrade
      23 December 2019 03: 31
      +1
      Quote: ElTuristo
      There is a good monoraphy "Dunkirk" and "Strasbourg". The authors of the monograph give the opinion that Strasbourg was close to the Arc Royal during the breakthrough, at a distance of effective fire

      This is a delusion or just a beautiful fiction. There is information that Strasbourg and Ark Royal walked at divergent courses, and there were tens of miles between them.
  21. Cyer
    Cyer 23 December 2019 09: 10
    -2
    Dear Valentine. In view of your words about Britain's "treacherous attack" on the French Navy, I would like to ask a question - is the Soviet attack on Finland in 1939, carried out with the aim of ensuring the safety of Leningrad from a possible German attack with the possible support of Finland, treacherous?
  22. kig
    kig 28 December 2019 14: 50
    0
    four went on reconnaissance, one on reconnaissance

    Reconnaissance (military affairs) - intelligence to obtain information about the enemy, carried out personally by the commander and staff officers before the upcoming hostilities.

    Reconnaissance (military affairs) - intelligence to obtain information about the enemy, carried out personally by the commander and staff officers before the upcoming hostilities.

    It seems to be the same thing? However, it seems that in the English charters these concepts were different ... winked
  23. Major48
    Major48 16 March 2020 00: 13
    0
    Thank you, recalled, Mers-el-Kebir - a beautiful bay, as it was unloaded.