Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "MN Alsace (NB) - Guide 181" video.

The net seems to have eaten my comment, so here is a second try: I have read that the Dunkerques were designed as a response to the Deutschland, with a little more gun and a little more armor, rather than building up to the limit France was allowed under the treaty, while Italy's quota under the same treaty was unused. Then the French had to run back to the drawing board when the Littorios were laid down, because the Littorios were treaty-max ships, and the Richelieus were created. Would have been interesting if the Dunkerquies were built as treaty-max, essentially being the first two Richelieus, with the Littorios being answered with the Gascogne design. Then France and Italy would both enter the war with 4 treaty-max ships built or building.
2
dimapez it would be amusing of the French, with confidence in the Entente Cordiale, built that big dock in Toulon, where the Germans could not get at it by sea at all.
1
@CTXSLPR The US BBs have the advantage of playing defense. Scharnhorst or Gneisenau try to use their superior speed to get on the other side of the convoy from the BB, the BB simply takes a shortcut through the body of the convoy, so by the time the faster German ship has gone around the formation, the BB is there waiting for it.
1
I wonder the same thing. Even the 5.1s on the Dunkerques were not well suited to AA use. The fixed rounds were terribly heavy, some 117lbs. The loaders would get tired in a hurry hefting rounds that heavy. The 6" was even worse, with the shell alone weight over 120lbs, with a rate of fire of only 5-6 rounds/minute. The 5"/38 shells only weighed about 55lbs. and with the all singing, all dancing mounts with built in hoists could fire up to 22r/m. The only thing that 6" would be particularly good for is if the battleships were attacked by a cruiser swarm, like Graf Spee was. Seems the French did start to catch on as some sources say some of the 6" on Richelieu were replaced with more of the 100mmDP.
1
@hughfisher9820 The Wiki article says there was a treaty limitation that forced the Dunkerques to be the size they were, but I reviewed the text of both the Washington and 1930 London treaties and found no such reduced limitation in the text, France was allowed 70,000 tons total, and a max of 35,000T each. Another part of the Wiki article says the Brits were pushing for a reduction in the tonnage limits in the 1930 treaty, and France sought to support the British position, then apparently carried through and built the small ships even though the treaty did not in fact include the reduced limits. In the back of my mind is the thought there was a reluctance to spend any more on the two ships to make them treaty-max, and hope everyone else followed their lead. Wishful thinking is rarely a sound strategy. Given Mussolini's territorial ambitions, where were displayed through the 20s and early 30s in reoccupying the parts of Libya that had slipped from Italy's grasp, it seems stunningly foolish to think he would restrain himself and not build anything more potent than the Dunkerques, even though the treaty would allow it. Of course, if the Dunkerques were built to the Richelieu design, the probable net change in the course of the war would be Dunkerque would not be so badly damaged at Mers El Kébir. would have made it's way to Toulon with Strasbourg, where they were both scuttled, so, net, zero change in their part of the war.
1
@ @hughfisher9820 yes, both countries had financial constraints. The Italian fleet being severely constrained in the 20s is laid on the cost of subjugating Libya. I notice the Littorios were ordered shortly after the Libyian campaign was wrapped up in 32. When the Dunkerques were laid down, France was also sinking a fortune into the Maginot Line. I have also read that there was a line of thought that, by building undersized ships, France could build more of them. Italy looked at that through the late 20s as well, but, when it came time to sign a construction contract, they went big.
1