-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Your right.... just checked my books and it was Musashi that did jack shit, not the Yamato.... thats what happens when you go by memory...
The Veneto class ships had nine barrels of 15" guns while the Richelieu class only had eight 15" guns all of them in the forward arc.
As for armour.... hard to say since with the Richelieu class the French went with an all-or-nothing design....
Both classes were of about the same weight.... achived the same speed ..... but the Veneto class was only designed for voyages in the relativly calm med, which didnt make them suitable for action elsewhere......
Ogosho in Japanese... The title of the shadow Shogun who actually controlled Japan, funnily enough the system, basically became like this in the end:
Leader of the country: the emperor
who is led by the shadow emperor
who is led by the shogun
who is led by the shadow shogun
Still works that way in Japan....
Hmm..I thought the country was run by Toyota, Mitsubishi and Yamaha..maybe it´s just the same..®
®
Originally posted by Wasa
Hmm..I thought the country was run by Toyota, Mitsubishi and Yamaha..maybe it´s just the same..
Well for someone who works at Volvo it might seam that way
The two were similar in some ways (size, speed, and maneuverability, as well as displacement) but the Littorios had better weapons layout and the Richelieus better deck armor. Underwater protection for both was supposed to be good, but both classes suffered severely when they were hit below the waterline.
The Littotios, interestingly, had better heavy-weather performance than the Richelieus (though by the time Richelieu saw action, it was very much overweight with added AA, so the comparison there may not be fair).
Tactically, though, the design of Richelieu must be seen as badly flawed. With all the main guns forward, and the secondaries aft, she would be forced to adapt he strategy to her enemy's maneuvers, rather than the other way around. I much prefer the balance Littorio design.
Originally posted by Lord E
Well for someone who works at Volvo it might seam that way
Sweden is run by Volvo..
It's a matter of tactical style. AFAIC, Richelieu's main battery layout is perfect. What use are guns that won't bear inside the 120° forward arc?
Originally posted by Aetius
With or without the turrets?
Wasn't that one part of the Japanese bag of tricks?
Tactical considerations.....Originally posted by Sire Enaique
It's a matter of tactical style. AFAIC, Richelieu's main battery layout is perfect. What use are guns that won't bear inside the 120° forward arc?
It is easier to hit a target that is closing, then moving alongside (what got the Hood) as the salvoes were more correct in side then length. So you wanted the enemy to be closing with you while you are moving in side as to get the best target profile.
We're talking the FRENCH NAVY here! I mean, I could understand the idea of having all guns able to bear when running away, but what use were forward-firing guns to the French?Originally posted by Sire Enaique
It's a matter of tactical style. AFAIC, Richelieu's main battery layout is perfect. What use are guns that won't bear inside the 120° forward arc?
Of course, rumor always was that the italian's didn't even paint the bows of their ships, since no-one ever saw them!
If you look closely at the waterline just aft of "A" turret, you can see the edge of the glass bottom they put in here in late '41 so she could see where she was going...Originally posted by Lord E
This is also a nice ship
HMS Prince of Wales
The KGV class have to be the most disappointing of all the treaty battleships.
No, its the French Army that runs away. The French navy is different. Or maybe they run at full astern...
The Combined Fleet page has some nice things to say about the Richelieu...
Steele
The Combined Fleet page has some nice things to say about the Richelieu...
Steele
"Gascogne
Planned in 1938. Would have been built by St. Nazaire-Penhöet. Not laid down. Would have built to modified design, with one turret forward and one aft."
I've seen this mentioned a couple of times on web pages dealing with the Richelieu class, does anyone of you know any more detail of the design?
Planned in 1938. Would have been built by St. Nazaire-Penhöet. Not laid down. Would have built to modified design, with one turret forward and one aft."
I've seen this mentioned a couple of times on web pages dealing with the Richelieu class, does anyone of you know any more detail of the design?
The French navy has since Napoleon been known as a trial-and-error fleet, they tried numerous different design models, this with the Dunkerque class was perhaps their last attempt to create an innovative class of ships.....Originally posted by grumbler
We're talking the FRENCH NAVY here! I mean, I could understand the idea of having all guns able to bear when running away, but what use were forward-firing guns to the French?
Actually, if you look closely, you see that the armour begins there (lack of velves(?)) anyhow it was her lack of manueverabilty that got her (that and the japanese pilots skill, and the arrogance of Admiral Phillips), the Repulse wich was with her, managed to avoid being hit for much longer, but sucumbed faster once hit.