Military Review

Crime and Punishment. French battleship "Jean Bar"

35



April 1689 of the year. English Channel. 24-gun French frigate "Serpan" engages with the Dutch ship. The French are at a distinct disadvantage. On board the "Serpana" cargo barrels of gunpowder - the frigate can at any time take off into the air. At this point, ship captain Jean Bar notices an 12-year-old Jung, who squatted in fear. The captain in a rage shouts to the sailors: “Tie him to the mast. If he does not know how to look death in the eyes, he is not worthy to live. ”

The 12-year-old boy was Francois-Cornel Bar, the son of Jean Bar and the future French admiral fleet.

Oh, and the family was cruel!

Dad is especially famous - the legendary Jean Bar of Dunkirk, the most impudent and lucky of the 17th century French corsairs. It was in his honor that the best battleship of the French Navy during the Second World War was named. "Jean Bar" - the second ship in a series of battleships "Richelieu", to whose share a surprisingly long and eventful life fell.

Design

French battleships of the "Richelieu" type are considered to be the most balanced and perfect battleships of the prewar period. They had many virtues and almost no serious flaws. Small defects in their design were gradually eliminated over the long years of their service.

At the time of construction, these were the fastest battleships in the world (32 of the node), which were noticeably inferior in combat power to only one Yamato and roughly equivalent to the German Bismarck. But at the same time, the French “35000-toners” along with the American “North Caroline” remained the smallest ships in their class.

Crime and Punishment. French battleship "Jean Bar"


Excellent performance was achieved with the help of a special layout, with the placement of two four-armored towers of the Civil Code in the bow of the ship. This saved on the mass of the towers (the four-gun turret weighed less than two two-guns) and also reduced the length of the citadel (the “meter” of which weighed 25 tons) by converting the allocated load reserve into additional armor thickness.

From the point of view of combat characteristics, the “all guns forward” scheme also had its advantages: the ability to fire full salvoes at the nasal corners could be useful in pursuing enemy raiders and heavy cruisers. The guns grouped in the nose had a smaller scatter of volleys and simplified fire control. Due to the unloading of the aft tip and the displacement of the scales to the midsection, the ship’s seaworthiness improved, the hull strength increased. Placed in the stern of the boat and seaplanes are no longer at risk of exposure to muzzle gases.

The drawback of the scheme was the “dead zone” on the aft corners. The problem was partially solved by the unprecedentedly large angles of shelling of the towers of the main caliber - from 300 ° to 312 °.

Four guns in one turret created the threat of losing half of the entire GK artillery from a single “stray” projectile hit. In order to increase the combat survivability of the Richelieu tower, they were divided by an armored partition, each pair of guns had its own independent ammunition supply system.

380 mm French guns surpassed all existing German and British naval guns in terms of armor penetration. The French 844-kg armor-piercing projectile could penetrate 378 mm armor at a distance of 20 000 m.


The rapid slope of the chimney - the brand name of the French battleships

The installation of nine medium-caliber guns (152 mm) was not a very rational solution: their high power and armor penetration did not matter in repelling destroyer attacks, while the insufficient pick-up speed and low rate of fire made them almost useless in repelling air attacks. It was possible to achieve acceptable characteristics only after the war, when there was no longer any sense in it.

In general, the question of everything with regard to air defense and fire control systems "hung in the air": in view of the specific conditions for their completion, the Richelieu and Jean Bar were left without modern radar. Given that before the war, France occupied a leading position in the development of radio-electronic means.

However, the Richelieu managed to get a full set of modern radio equipment during the repair in the USA at 1943. Jean Bar, rehabilitated on its own, also received the best MSAs of its time. By 1949, 16 radar stations of various ranges and purposes were installed on its board.


"Richelieu" arrives in New York

The air defense system of the late period looked very cool: 24 universal 100 mm guns in twin units, coupled with 28 anti-aircraft guns of 57 mm caliber. All guns had centralized guidance according to radar. “Jean Bar”, without exaggeration, received an outstanding air defense system - the best of all ever installed on battleships. However, the approaching era of jet aviation made other demands on anti-aircraft systems.

A few words about the armor protection of battleships:

Battleships of the "Richelieu" type had the best horizontal booking among all the ships of the world. The main armored hull 150 ... 170 mm thick, supported by the 40 mm lower armored deck with 50 mm bevels - even the great Yamato could not boast of such indicators. Horizontal booking of battleships "Richelieu" was not limited to the citadel: 100 mm armored decks with bevels (150 mm above the steering gear compartment) went into the stern.

Vertical booking of French battleships is no less admirable. The 330 mm armor resistance, taking into account its inclination to 15 ° from the vertical, the boarding and the 18 mm lining made of STS steel, was equivalent to homogeneous armor 478 mm thick. And at a meeting angle of 10 ° from the normal, the resistance increased to 546 mm!

Thickness-differentiated armor traverses (233-355 mm), powerful conning tower, where walls were 340 mm solid metal (+ 2 lining from STS, 34 mm in total) thick, excellent tower protection (430 mm forehead, 300 mm side, 260) -270 mm rear), 405 mm barbettes (80 mm below the main armored deck), local anti-fragmentation booking of important posts - nothing to complain about.

Special attention was paid to the issues of anti-torpedo protection: the depth of the PTZ ranged from 4,12 meters (in the area of ​​the nose beam) to 7 meters (mid-frame). In the course of the post-war modernization, “Jean Baru” added 122-meter boules with a width of 1,27 m. This further increased the depth of the PTZ, which according to calculations could withstand an underwater explosion of up to 500 kg of TNT.



And all this splendor fit in the body with a full displacement of the entire 48 950 tons. The given value corresponds to the “Jean Baru” of model 1949 after its completion and all post-war activities for the modernization of the battleship.

Overall rating

Richelieu and Jean Bart. Powerful, beautiful and very original ships, which favorably differed from other battleships with their well-thought-out balanced design. Despite the large number of implemented innovations, the French never had to regret their bold decisions. The coppers of the Sural-Indre system, in which the combustion of the fuel took place under excessive pressure in 2 atm, operated smoothly. The design of battleships demonstrated excellent combat stability. "Jean Bar", being in an unfinished state, was able to withstand five to seven hits of American 406 mm shells, each of which weighed a ton and a quarter. It is easy to imagine the destructive power of these "pigs"!



It is safe to say that in the face of "Richelieu" and "Jean Bara" any battleship of the Second World War would have met a worthy opponent, the outcome of the one-on-one duel that hardly anyone could have predicted.

- “French LC" Richelieu "and" Jean Bar "”, S. Suliga

Courage, betrayal and redemption

10 May 1940 German troops invaded France. At that moment, the unfinished battleship “Jean Bar” was in St. Nazaire, whose entry into service was scheduled for October of the same year. Already 17 in May, the situation became so serious that the French had to think about the immediate withdrawal of the battleship from Saint-Nazaire.

This could be done no earlier than on the night of 20 on 21 June - at the full moon, when the tide reaches its highest point. But before that, it was necessary to expand and deepen the canal leading to the Loire for the unhindered withdrawal of a huge ship.

Finally, it was necessary to complete the battleship itself - to partially commission its power plant, electricity generators, a radio station, install screws and equip the battleship with the necessary means of navigation. Connect the galley, ensure the habitability of the compartments to accommodate personnel. It was not possible to establish the entire planned composition of armaments - but the French planned to commission at least one main-caliber turret.

This entire complex of works should be completed in one month. At the slightest delay, the French had no choice but to blow up the battleship.

The shipyard workers at Saint Nazaire started the race against time. Under German bombing, working on 12 hours per shift, 3500 people tried to accomplish the impossible.

22 May was drained by the dock in which stood the "Jean Bar". Workers started painting its underwater part.

3 June on the inner shaft of the left side was installed screw (from the set of spare parts for "Richelieu", delivered from the Brest shipyard). Four days later, set the screw on the inner shaft of the right side.

June 9 put into operation some auxiliary mechanisms, steering gear and galley.

On June 13, 12 commissioned three boilers and began work on balancing propellers.

Towers of medium caliber by the appointed date not arrived. A compromise solution was urgently developed - to mount in their place paired 90 mm anti-aircraft guns (sample 1926). The guns and ammunition delivery systems were installed in a matter of days, but the ammunition sent from Brest was late for the departure of the ship. The battleship was left without a medium and universal caliber.

13 and 14 June was a difficult and time-consuming operation to install four 380 mm guns of the main caliber turret.

June 16 were put into operation the main turbines and generators in the boilers of the battleship raised pairs.

18 June, the Germans entered Nantes, which lies just 65 km east of Saint-Nazaire. On this day the tricolor flag of France was raised on the battleship. The supply of electricity from the shore stopped, and now all the necessary electricity was generated by a single turbine generator aboard the “Zhana Bara”.

By this time, working dredgers managed to clear the channel width of the entire 46,5 m (with the width of the body of the battleship 33 meter!). The crew of "Jean Bar" was required remarkable courage and luck for the safe wiring of the battleship in such a narrow way.

The operation was scheduled for the following night. Despite the absence of most of the armament on the battleship and the minimum amount of oil on board (125 tons), the estimated depth under the keel did not exceed 20-30 centimeters.

The tugs pulled the Jean Bar out of the dock, but after 40 meters of movement, the battleship's nose was buried in the mud. He was dragged from the ground, but after a couple of minutes, the ground gnawed under the bottom again. This time the consequences were more serious - the battleship damaged part of the bottom plating and the right screw.

By morning 5, when Jean-Bar, helping with its own vehicles, was already going out to the middle of the river, Luftwaffe planes appeared in the sky. One of the dropped bombs broke through the upper deck between the barbets of the GK towers and exploded in the internal compartments, creating a swelling of the deck deck. The fire that occurred was quickly extinguished by water from a broken pipeline.

At this time, the battleship was already confidently moving towards the open ocean, developing the speed of 12 nodes. At the exit from the harbor two tankers and a few escort from French destroyers were waiting for him.

Now, when the horrors of imprisonment in Saint-Nazaire were left behind, the obvious question arose before the battleship commander Pierre Ronark: Where to go?

Despite the unfinished condition and the absence of the majority of the crew (there were only 570 people on board, including 200 civilians - shipyard workers), in the evening of 22 June 1940, the battleship “Jean Bar” arrived safely in Casablanca. On the same day she entered news on a truce with the Germans.

The next two years, the Jean Bar quietly rusted at the pier in Casablanca; he was strictly forbidden to leave the harbor. The battleship was closely watched by the German and Italian authorities. From the air, the situation was watched by British reconnaissance aircraft (one of which was shot down by anti-aircraft fire from the battleship).

The French, hoping for the best, continued to maintain the “Jean Bar” mechanisms in working condition, engaged in self-made repair and modernization of the armament composition. Filled the hole from the German bomb sheets of ordinary steel. The barbet of the unfinished tower II was poured with cement in order to reduce the trim on the stern. A set of range finders was delivered from Toulon to control the fire of the main and universal caliber taken from the Dunkirk battleship undergoing repair. The anti-aircraft armament was enhanced by five turrets with twin 90 mm guns. A search radar appeared on the roof of the superstructure.

Finally, 19 May 1942 year, it came to the main caliber. With the permission of the occupation authorities, Jean-Bar gave five four-gun volleys towards the sea. The tests were successful, but the event did not go unnoticed (and even more so - unheard) for the American consul in Casablanca. A dispatch about the presence of a powerful combat-capable battleship off the coast of North Africa, which could pose a threat to the allies, flew to Washington. In the course of Operation Torch planned for November 1942 (the landing of Anglo-American troops in North Africa), Jean Bar was included in the list of priority targets.

At dawn 8 November 1942, a message was received aboard the battleship on the movement of a group of unknown ships off the coast. In 6: 00 local time, the team ranked according to the combat schedule, guns of the main caliber were loaded. Closer to the 8 in the morning, through the clouds of smoke from the destroyers who were stationed in the harbor, silhouettes of a battleship and two cruisers were seen.

The Americans were serious - the TG 34.1 battle group, as part of the newest Massachusetts battleship with 406 mm main caliber, was approaching Casablanca, with the support of the heavy cruisers Wichita and Tuskalouse surrounded by a destroyer squad.


Ship Museum USS Massachusetts, Fall River, our days

The first strike was inflicted by the Dontless 9 dive bombers, who took off from the Ranger aircraft carrier located 30 miles from the coast. One of the bombs hit the rear of the Jean Bar. Breaking through several decks and the bottom, she caused the flooding of the manual steering compartment. Another bomb hit the embankment nearby - the battleship was showered with stonework, the skin received cosmetic damage.

It was only the first cruel hello, which the Yankees welcomed the ships of Vichy France. In 08: 04, ships in the Casablanca harbor opened fire with the main caliber battleship and US Navy cruisers. Over the next 2,5 hours, the Massachusetts from the 22 distance 000 meters released 9 French full bursts of 9 shells and 38 bombs of 3 and 6 shells having achieved five direct hits at Jean Bar.

The meeting with a supersonic 1226 kg alloy steel bar did not bode well. The greatest consequences could have been the hit of a shell that pierced the deck in the aft part of the battleship and broke out in the cellar of the towers of medium caliber (fortunately for the French - empty). Damage from the remaining four hits can be classified as moderate.


A piece of armor-piercing projectile trapped in "Jean Bar"

One of the shells pierced through part of the pipe and superstructure, and exploded outside, causing fragmental damage to the side. Closer to 9 in the morning, the ship shuddered from two direct hits on the barbets of the GK towers. The fifth projectile struck again in the stern, in a place already damaged by a bomb. Also, there are discrepancies about the two close breaks: the French claim that there was a direct hit on the armor belt and the battleship's bulb.

Due to the strong smoke of the harbor, “Jean Bar” managed to give only 4 salvo in response, after which the adjustment of the fire was impossible.

Having shot the still unfinished battleship, the Yankees considered the task accomplished, and retreated in full swing towards the open sea. However, already by six in the evening of the same day, “Jean Bar” restored combat capability. The next day, his universal artillery fired 250 shells at the oncoming Anglo-American forces, but the main caliber was not used to not reveal all the trump cards to the end.

On November 10 the American heavy cruiser Augusta arrogantly approached Casablanca. At that moment, “Jean Bar” launched a sighting volley from 380 mm guns. The Yankees flew off in terror in horror, radiograms of a giant awakened giant rushed to the open air. The payback was brutal: three hours later, the Dontsessy attacked the French battleship from the Ranger aircraft carrier, achieving two hits from the 1000-fnl. bombs.



In total, as a result of artillery shelling and air strikes, Jean Bar suffered heavy injuries, lost most of its electricity, received 4500 tons of water and sat astern on the ground. The crew’s irretrievable loss was 22 man (among the sailors aboard the 700). Great booking until the end fulfilled its purpose. For comparison - on board of the light cruiser Primog, which was nearby, 90 people died.

Speaking about the damage of "Jean Bar", it is worth taking into account that the ship was unfinished, many of its compartments were unsealed. The only turbogenerator turned out to be damaged - the power supply was carried out using emergency diesel generators. On board the ship was abbreviated crew. And nevertheless, the fixed battleship turned out to be a "tough nut to crack" and coolly ruffled the nerves of the allies.

After the accession of the French forces in Africa to the Allies, "Jean Bar" was removed from the ground and prepared to be sent under its own power for repair in the United States. However, unlike his head "Richelieu", "Jean Baru" required extensive refurbishment with the manufacture of the missing main caliber tower. The problem was complicated by the lack of drawings of the mechanisms of the tower and the complexity with the transition to the metric system of measures and weights. The process was delayed, as a result, the work on the restoration of "Jean Bara" started on its own only after the war.

The bold designs of converting the “Jean Bar” into an aircraft carrier or the exotic “air defense battleship” with the installation of the 34 twin universal five-inch and 80 anti-aircraft Bofors automatic guns were considered. As a result of all discussions, the designers returned with the simplest, cheapest and most obvious option. Completion of the battleship on the original project with the introduction of the latest advances in the field of automation and radio engineering.



The updated battleship returned to service in April 1950. Over the following years, "Jean Bar" was used as the flagship of the Mediterranean fleet of the French Navy. The ship made many visits to European ports, made a visit to the United States. The last time Jean Bar was in a combat zone in 1956, during the Suez crisis. In the case of the stubbornness of the Egyptian leadership, the French command planned to use the guns of the battleship for the bombing of Egyptian cities.

In the period from 1961 to 1969, the year Jean Bar was used as a training ship at an artillery school in Toulon. In January 1970, the last of the French battleships was finally excluded from the fleet and put up for sale. In the summer of the same year, he was towed to La Diet for disassembly into metal.


Veteran rests on the laurels of glory on the French Riviera


According to the materials of the monograph "French LC" Richelieu "and" Jean Bar "" Sergei Suligi.
Author:
35 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 May 2014 08: 53
    +13
    In general and in general - indeed, one of the best battleships in the world. In terms of the aggregate performance characteristics, it surpassed the King George V, Littorio and Bismarck, and it would have been better for American battleships not to meet with him. In fact, it was second only to Yamato, who was more than one and a half times larger.
    1. Sakhalininsk
      Sakhalininsk 15 May 2014 10: 58
      +10
      I agree with you, the battleships of the "Richelieu" class are truly magnificent ships, in fact, the pinnacle of the French shipbuilding school.
      In fact, it is the strongest battleship built in Europe.
    2. angolaforever
      angolaforever 15 May 2014 14: 12
      0
      It seems like yes, but the amers had an 406 caliber, they could keep their distance at an unattainable distance.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 May 2014 14: 19
        +3
        Quote: angolaforever
        It seems like yes, but the amers had an 406 caliber, they could keep their distance at an unattainable distance.

        Could not, since the range of fire of both guns, that of the French 380-mm, that of the American 406-mm exceeds the limits of visibility
        1. Crang
          Crang 15 May 2014 14: 52
          0
          Damn - yes the firing range of Russian armadillos in 1MB already exceeded the horizon and much, such.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 May 2014 15: 23
            +2
            Quote: Krang
            Damn - yes the firing range of Russian battleships in 1MV already exceeded the horizon and was much

            wassat
            What did you write below?
            Quote: Krang
            As the great Vladimir Ilyich used to say - "study, study and study again!"

            So learn, after all. Firstly, the horizon and the visibility limit are completely different things, the ship can be behind the horizon, but still be visible (part of the hull and superstructures, for example). Secondly, Russian EBRs in WWI fired a maximum of 110-120 kbt (this is even 35 degrees elevation), which does not reach 23 km, so there can be no question of any "over the horizon". And thirdly, if you do not see the enemy, you cannot fire at him otherwise than from a remote post, there were no such duels between ships in WWII, and could not be. And therefore, arguments about the ranges "with which the 406-mm gun of the American LK will reach the Frenchman and the French 380 will not reach the American" do not make sense
            1. Crang
              Crang 15 May 2014 15: 31
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              . Secondly, the Russian EDB in WWI shot at a maximum of 110-120 kbt (this is even at 35 degrees elevation)

              At 35gr elevation of the GK guns, the firing range of Russian armadillos 305mm shells of the 1907g model was 135kbt or 25km.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And therefore, arguments about the ranges "with which the 406-mm gun of the American LK will reach the Frenchman and the French 380 will not reach the American" do not make sense

              Was this my reasoning?
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              which does not reach 23 km,

              What makes you think that the horizon is exactly 23km? Watching from what height to observe. For example, two people of average height, given the curvature of the earth, see each other from a distance of 8 km (naturally, they only see each other's heads). And if you are on the top bridge of a tower-like superstructure of a huge 2MV battleship, then you can see enemy masts and towers from 30km. But for warships from Tsushima to 2MV, given the height of the MSA devices, the range of visual contact with the target was in the region of 90-110 kb.
              1. Kars
                Kars 15 May 2014 16: 18
                +1
                Quote: Krang
                then you can see the enemy masts and towers with 30km

                Quote: Krang
                305mm shells of sample 1907g was 135kbt or 25km.

                Quote: Krang
                MV has already exceeded the horizon and much more

                So did it rise or not? Or is there a horizon
                Quote: Krang
                people of average height, given the curvature of the earth, see each other from a distance of 8km (

                ?
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 May 2014 16: 19
                +1
                Quote: Krang
                At 35gr elevation of the GK guns, the firing range of Russian armadillos 305mm shells of the 1907g model was 135kbt or 25km.

                This is with what, may I ask? In general, it doesn't matter, the same Vinogradov defines the horizon for the battle of PMV ("Glory") as 150 kbt
                Quote: Krang
                Was this my reasoning?

                So I didn’t speak with you
                Quote: Krang
                What makes you think that the horizon is exactly 23km? Watching from what height to observe.

                The horizon refers to the range at which the observer of a particular ship is able to see.
                Quote: Krang
                But for warships from Tsushima to 2MB, given the height of the MSA devices, the range of visual contact with the target was in the 90-110kbt area.

                That's what Beatty in Jutland discovered Hipper with 14 miles.
                1. Crang
                  Crang 15 May 2014 19: 07
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  This is with what, may I ask? In general, it doesn't matter, the same Vinogradov defines the horizon for the battle of PMV ("Glory") as 150 kbt

                  This is for the observers who were sitting on the battle marches. They yes - maybe they saw at 150kbt. But the devices of the Slava CSUO were located much lower: in the conning tower and on the bridge between the pipes - all the posts were about 15 m above the water. For them, the visibility limit was something about 110-120kbt.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  The horizon refers to the range at which the observer of a particular ship is able to see.

                  Shooting by voice corrections of an observer who sits on top of Mars is ineffective. The target should be seen by the viziers and directors of the ship's control center.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  That's what Beatty in Jutland discovered Hipper with 14 miles.

                  Discovered it just discovered it. For effective fire, you need to get closer. "Hood" and "Bismarck" also found each other from about 25 km, but for a fatal hit on the enemy, "Bismarck" had to get close to 14 km.
        2. tomket
          tomket 17 May 2014 09: 51
          -1
          The Americans would have sunk this Jean Bar, quickly and cheerfully, like the "Duke of York" "Scharnhorst". And with their radars they wanted to spit on your conclusions about line of sight.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 May 2014 11: 46
            +3
            Quote: tomket
            And they wanted to spit with their radars on your conclusions about direct visibility.

            Uh-huh. That was the “Washington” and “Dakota” at Guadalcanal, fighting against the lonely “cat of Admiral Fisher”, which, in theory, should have been banged dry, they managed to get shocked so that the “Dakota” completely lost its combat capability
            1. tomket
              tomket 17 May 2014 16: 34
              -1
              are you talking about the fight with "Kirishima"? Well, this battleship of Admiral Congo seems to have sunk. This one, two damaged Dakota secured an overall victory of 64 to the pairing. Also, make allowances for the fact that the battle did not take place in the open ocean. As the same example with "Scharnhorst", or according to your "Jean Bar" should constantly dive between the islands, posing as either a monitor or a battleship of coastal defense? thereby saving yourself from death in the open ocean.
  2. fzr1000
    fzr1000 15 May 2014 09: 00
    +6
    Beautiful monster, sorry did not fight against the Nazis.
  3. avt
    avt 15 May 2014 09: 24
    +6
    Quote: fzr1000
    Beautiful monster

    Yes, a really beautiful ship and quite balanced from an engineering point of view! good
    Quote: fzr1000
    sorry not fought against the Nazis.

    On the other hand, Richelieu roamed around the world and at the end of the war almost caught a heavy samurai cruiser. Even under the impression of these projects {predecessor of the Dunkirk} The Soviet Navy was working on options for a "cheap" series of battleships with a similar layout of the main caliber. , The disadvantage of the scheme was the "dead zone" at the aft corners. The problem was partially solved by the unprecedentedly large firing angles of the main caliber turrets - from 300 ° to 312 °. " -------Well no . This did not eliminate the shortcomings of the scheme for the Angles on "Rodney" too, that is why the third ship the Franks worked with the installation of a third main-caliber turret at the stern. I would have been a monster! although there was also a variant with two towers at the ends and 8 guns instead of 12i. In general, this layout of the main battery guns, both among the Franks and among the British, is associated with the limitation of displacement according to the Washington agreements, as well as the caliber of 203mm on heavy cruisers and 152mm on light cruisers. the community ", series 26, Kirov" was demanded to be recognized as heavy. Well, on the whole, the Franks turned out beautiful ships and were pretty decent as combat units.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 May 2014 09: 56
      +4
      Quote: avt
      that is why the Franks worked out the third ship with the installation of a third main-caliber tower at the stern

      No :))) The first two are cutwork and jean bar, everything is clear with them. The third, "Clemenceau", was of the same scheme, both towers in front. But the fourth "Gascony" also had two towers, but one - in front and the second - in the back
      By the way, such a scheme was preferable - there was no need to "lift" the second tower over the first, i.e. saved several hundred tons on the weight of the barbet
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 May 2014 09: 59
        +7
        But the next series with 12 guns GK - yes! :))) Krasava :)
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. avt
        avt 15 May 2014 10: 16
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        No :))) The first two are cutwork and jean bar, everything is clear with them. The third, "Clemenceau", was of the same scheme, both towers in front. But the fourth "Gascony" also had two towers, but one - in front and the second - in the back

        “Gascony” forgot.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 May 2014 11: 18
          +3
          Quote: avt
          “Gascony” forgot.

          To come! drinks
        2. The comment was deleted.
      4. Crang
        Crang 15 May 2014 10: 32
        0
        Gascony is a normal battleship.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 May 2014 11: 19
          +5
          You would have called his third armored desman third rank
          1. Crang
            Crang 15 May 2014 14: 54
            0
            And what - looks like a typical squadron battleship. I didn’t prove to me the absurd thing that the dreadnought and armadillo are fundamentally different ships and only the first is a battleship? You.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 May 2014 15: 09
              +1
              Quote: Krang
              And what

              Nitsche
              Quote: Krang
              looks like a typical squadron battleship

              Oooooh, how's it going. Tell me, does the electric stove also look like a squadron battleship? What about a brick?
              1. Crang
                Crang 15 May 2014 15: 12
                0
                Dya dya dya - how smart you are. You don't understand the joke, right? As the great Vladimir Ilyich used to say - "study, study and study again!"
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 May 2014 15: 25
                  +1
                  Quote: Krang
                  Do not understand the joke, right?

                  I do not understand. And I don’t catch snooping armadillos. Here I am.
                2. The comment was deleted.
  4. Crang
    Crang 15 May 2014 10: 37
    +5
    These French battleships were second only to the Yamato, and then perhaps only because of their size. In terms of design perfection, they were quite at the level of the Japanese super battleship. The only controversial thing is perhaps the four-gun main guns. Everything else is fine. The Vitorio Venetto and Roma, for all their originality, had many flaws, and the Bismarcs were not quite battleships, but rather raiders.
    1. avt
      avt 15 May 2014 13: 41
      +2
      Quote: Krang
      The only controversial thing is perhaps the four-gun installations of the Civil Code.

      There, too, everything was well thought out, I will not tell you the details for memory, but in principle they were paired two-gun towers, separated by an armored partition and two systems for feeding shells for each pair of its own, for each half-tower, cellar. Kslovu - such towers in the amount of 3 pieces with 406mm guns, were worked out for the following battleships, after Izmail and Petropavlovsk, with a linear installation on the hull - a bow and stern salvo of 4 guns, side - 12.
      1. Crang
        Crang 15 May 2014 14: 56
        0
        Quote: avt
        Everything was well thought out there too.

        No matter how well she thought it over, in terms of survivability, it is still not the same as 3 - 3 gun turrets, or even more so 4 - 2 gun turrets. By the way, the Germans, by the way, precisely because of their survivability, did not want to switch to a scheme with three barrels in the installation, and on the Bismarck they returned again with four 2-gun ones.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 May 2014 15: 12
          +3
          Quote: Krang
          The Germans, by the way, because of survivability, did not want to switch to a scheme with three trunks

          Yeah. And so they equipped the light cruisers, pocket battleships and Scharnhorst with gneisenau with three-gun turrets of the Civil Code.
          Two-gun turrets are not a matter of survivability, it is a matter of using artillery - eight guns in four towers were considered optimal for firing. Which, by the way, was noted by our military men, when developing the battleships "SovSoyuz" (and were ignored)
  5. blizart
    blizart 15 May 2014 12: 03
    +5
    I just don’t understand, "Jean Bara" was bombed by the Americans, "Strasbourg" and "Dunkirk" by the British (Operation "Catapult"), how did the French get into the winners? If, moreover, after the "strange war", Paris surrendered 200 km before reaching the enemy? Strange are your deeds about Ares!
  6. Analgin
    Analgin 15 May 2014 12: 48
    +3
    Quote: Krang
    These French battleships were second only to the Yamato, and then perhaps only because of their size.

    And what about the American project "Montana"? It is a pity that it did not work out for him, he was late and was never implemented. And then, you see, he would drive the "Japanese" as a naughty puppy across the seas on waves - the speed allowed ... Almost 15 tons would be shipped with 1 salvo of the main caliber. A monster and the pinnacle of evolution, as for me.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 May 2014 13: 28
      +4
      Quote: Analgin
      And what about the American project "Montana"?

      Well, built ships must be compared with built ones. And if we talk about projects, I’ll tell you that Montana is just babble in front of the N-44 (displacement of 131 thousand tons, full - 141,5 thousand tons and eight 508-mm guns)
      And even this dream of the mind of a gloomy Aryan genius fades before Tillman's battleships. one of the options provided for 24 (in words - TWENTY-FOUR !!!) 406-mm guns, another one - fifteen 457-mm.
    2. Crang
      Crang 15 May 2014 14: 56
      0
      Why then? The Germans and Japanese already had projects of battleships with 508mm guns. I mean 20 ".
  7. avt
    avt 15 May 2014 13: 19
    +2
    Quote: Analgin
    And what about the American project "Montana"?

    Yeah! It would have been a cooler unit! But it didn’t get to the bookmark, they started to do it on BB-67 and BB-68, so that 25.1.41. to lay down, but everyone finally stopped on 06.1942/21.07.1943 and annulled the contract on 67000/70500/XNUMX. And so would be a monster of XNUMX-XNUMX tons with a triple bottom! laughing
  8. Yarik
    Yarik 15 May 2014 15: 51
    0
    Krang (3) Today, 14:52 PM ↑ New
    Damn - yes the firing range of Russian armadillos in 1MB already exceeded the horizon and much, such.

    And such a thing is that, possessing greater speed, the "Frenchman" could choose the distance of the battle, as it is beneficial for him, if he did not fly in large.
    1. Crang
      Crang 15 May 2014 16: 06
      0
      How will he do it? The effective firing range on battleships was determined at best by the radio horizon (a little further than the line-of-sight distance) - this is somewhere between 18-20 km. What is the difference in the case of WW2 battleships that one has artillery strikes at 35 km, and at another at 45 km? None at all. Experiments were carried out to adjust the battleship's fire according to the data of the reconnaissance aircraft launched from its side, but in practice this method of firing was suitable only against coastal targets. It was for shooting at ground areal targets that such a range was needed. In the case of naval battles, in the entire history of the confrontation between battleships, not a single hit was recorded from a distance of over 110kbt. By the way, the domestic battleship of the Black Sea Fleet "Panteleimon" (formerly "Potemkin") became a kind of leader in terms of the range of destruction of an enemy ship, which from 110kbt "purchased" "Goeben" during the second battle. So in the case of WW2 battleships, the advantage you quoted is far-fetched. Face this "Frenchman" for example with "Yamato" and he can of course use his speed to choose a distance, but what's the point? “Yamato” at any distance will still get it.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 May 2014 16: 31
        +2
        Quote: Krang
        In the case of sea battles in the entire history of the confrontation of battleships, not a single hit was recorded from a distance above 110kb

        Yeah. Worspite did not hit 13 miles in a battle near Calabria in Cesare.
        1. Santa Fe
          15 May 2014 17: 30
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Worspite did not hit 13 miles in a battle near Calabria in Cesare.

          Yes

          But Scharnhost and Gneisenau missed Glories aircraft carrier))
          1. avt
            avt 15 May 2014 18: 30
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            But Scharnhost and Gneisenau missed Glories aircraft carrier))

            Oleg, don't start. "Glories" was carrying 10 "Gladiators" and 10 "Hurricanes" from Norway, accompanied by two destroyers. Even if land planes were lifted into the air, which is already fantastic, rifle caliber to sink battleships? Or from 120mm onboard cannons? So they shot, with the help of radars, practically a floating target, by the way three shells hit, the rest was finished by the fire, and then the Scharnhorst caught the torpedo from Ardent.
        2. Crang
          Crang 15 May 2014 18: 57
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Yeah. Worspite did not hit 13 miles in a battle near Calabria in Cesare.

          13 miles is 20,9km, which is equal to 113kbt. What questions?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 May 2014 21: 59
            +1
            Quote: Krang
            13 miles is 20,9km, which is equal to 113kbt. What questions?

            negative
            My nautical mile, dear Krang, is 10 cable, so Warspite shot from 130 kbt (although I came across data that from 122 kbt)
            1. Crang
              Crang 16 May 2014 06: 51
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              At the nautical mile, dear Krang

              I think you were wrong.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 May 2014 07: 50
                +3
                No need to "think". Need to know. All distances when describing wars at sea are given in nautical miles, and in nautical mile, in fact, 1852 meters. Kabeltov, that's 185,2 meters (international)
                http://militera.lib.ru/h/smith_p4/05.html
                “I watched the huge bursts of our 381-mm volleys covering the target, when in 16.00 I noticed a huge orange flash near the base of the pipe of the enemy flagship. Immediately after that, a column of smoke rose, and I realized that the ship received a serious hit from an impressive distance of 13 miles. "

                “Worspite entering the enemy battleship from a distance of 26000 yards can be called a fluke. Its tactical effect was serious, because the enemy turned away and stopped the battle. But even more significant was the strategic effect that undermined the morale of the Italians. ”
  9. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 15 May 2014 18: 53
    +2
    Beautiful ship! One of my favorites in an aesthetic context. It is a pity, of course, that his high ordered combat characteristics were not tested in real combat. Casablanca does not count.
  10. Nayhas
    Nayhas 15 May 2014 20: 11
    +1
    Oleg, good afternoon. As I understand it, Jean Bar is an obvious contender for a remake of neolinkor? Well, or the use of the arrangement of guns hot-smoked?
    On the bow are two four-gun turrets 380-405mm, at the stern of the Mk41 Strike-Length UVP at 549 cells, the SPY-3 and AMDR are raised by 15-20 meters (displacement allows), a helicopter hangar for two cars, and of course armored belt, armored deck, anti-torpedo protection ...
    Right?
    1. Santa Fe
      15 May 2014 20: 35
      -3
      kind
      Quote: Nayhas
      On the nose are two four-gun towers 380-405mm

      Excess
      Quote: Nayhas
      Aft Mk41 Strike-Length on 549 cells

      Don't know xnumx is too much
      Quote: Nayhas
      Amdr

      What for? He's not going to shoot down satellites

      SPY-3 hat, it doesn’t fit high
      Samson some
      Quote: Nayhas
      Right?

      Almost
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 15 May 2014 20: 53
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Excess

        One four? Two three?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Don't know xnumx is too much

        9X61, the size of Jean ... Well, you can 4x61 and a developed landing area with a lift and a pair of F-35B ...
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        What for? He's not going to shoot down satellites

        Well, if you arsenal, then to the fullest!
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        SPY-3 hat, it doesn’t fit high

        C'mon, not heavier than the KDP and even more so the conning tower ...
        1. Santa Fe
          16 May 2014 01: 23
          0
          Quote: Nayhas
          One four? Two three?

          Three-gun
          Caliber in 406 mm redundant
          Quote: Nayhas
          9X61, the size of Jean ...

          64 - there will be no loading cranes
          Over 300-400 to sculpt irrelevant - for sure there will be a problem with the service, moreover, releasing such a b / c at a time is almost fantastic
          Quote: Nayhas
          landing pad with aerial platform and a pair of F-35B ...

          Why
          DB in the coastal zone

          Sheikh Isa, Bahrain



          Kunsan, South Korea


          Quote: Nayhas
          Well, if you arsenal, then to the fullest!

          On abandoned abandoned DBR
          Although it is possible in full - as the calculations show
          Quote: Nayhas
          C'mon, not heavier than the KDP and even more so the conning tower ...

          Unaesthetically))
  11. ded10041948
    ded10041948 15 May 2014 21: 26
    +1
    Still handsome, bastard! It seems to me, or do the frogs and ships really look pretty decent from an aesthetic point of view?
  12. 1969s9691g.
    1969s9691g. 16 May 2014 08: 46
    -6
    the best indicator for any ship is a battle. our tanks are the coolest our ships are the best ... Everything is decided by the battle and this is an axiom. Remember the Tsushima battle and everything will fall into place.
  13. Grafova Irina
    Grafova Irina 13 February 2018 12: 11
    +1
    I don’t know ... I prefer Italians purely outwardly ...