Richelieu vs KGV

[alecsandros]

Hello,
I was thinking about these 2 classes today. From my point of view, the Richelieu received excessive praise whilst the KGV's received excessive criticism.

The scenario would be: in the Mediteranean, 1940, KGV escorts a convoy. Richelieu appears on the horizon and a duel begins between the 2 battleships.

I would expect the Richelieu to manouvre better and to start closing the range, because it's guns were intended for flat trajectories. However, I would expect the KGV to draw first blood, because of much better grouping and a better fire control.
Though, on paper, Richelieu's armor scheme was clearly superior to KGV's, there are suspicions about the French armor's quality. Moreover, the rate of fire drasticaly favored the KGV, as well as shell grouping (remember the PoW landed 2 hits on the BS coming from one salvo, at at least 15km).

So, back to the scenario, my opinion is that KGV would leave the Richelieu bleeding on the water, though with some damage himself.

[RF]

KGV itself was only commissioned in December 1940 and given the combat experience with Bismarck five months later this scenario needs to build in a later battle date and take account of the gunnery ''gremlins'' of the KGV class.

Possibly a more realistic confrontation might be 1942 as a prelude to Torch, but there again I'm not familiar with the combat readiness of Richelieu at that date or indeed as to when it joined the Free French forces.

[Bgile]

Why do you think the French fire control wasn't as good? I honestly don't know.

[alecsandros]

KGV itself was only commissioned in December 1940 and given the combat experience with Bismarck five months later this scenario needs to build in a later battle date and take account of the gunnery ''gremlins'' of the KGV class.

Possibly a more realistic confrontation might be 1942 as a prelude to Torch, but there again I'm not familiar with the combat readiness of Richelieu at that date or indeed as to when it joined the Free French forces.

Let's assume KGV and Richelieu fully worked up on the summer of 1940. This would negate the radar advantage of the BRitish ship. It's a hypothetical scenario man...

[alecsandros]

Why do you think the French fire control wasn't as good? I honestly don't know.

I am thinking about the engagements of Richelieu and Jean Bart. Richelieu needed 12 salvos to find the range against Barham in 1940 (and that range being 12-14km), while Jean Bart failed to find the range against Augusta/Massachussets in 1942 (range ~ 20-24km) firing 10 or 12 salvos (I don't remember exactly).

PoW and KGV performed better in target finding against Bismarck (PoW actualy straddled BS at 30km with the 9th or 10th salvo), and that on much, much worse sea state...

I have no idea about the actual functionalities of the French/British Richelieu/KGV fire cotrol. So, I am speaking considering only the historical record available... Maybe someone knows better

P.S.:The ranging problems of the French BBs could have come from poor propellant charges (that was almost certainly the case with the Battle of Dakar), insufficient work-up, etc. On the other hand, the PoW wasn't exactly "fully worked up" either on May 1941, but neverthelss managed to make an impression over the BS, which was, at that date, the most powerfull European battleship, if not Atlantic BB.

[lwd]

I seem to recall reading that Richelieu had dispersion problems associated with the close proximaty of her muzzles and that these problems weren't solved until late war or possibly post war. Jean Bart was supposed to have been shooting pretty well all things considered during Torch.

[lwd]

..while Jean Bart failed to find the range against Augusta/Massachussets in 1942 (range ~ 20-24km) firing 10 or 12 salvos....

One report I read of this battle mentioned shells landing uncomfortably close to a US cruiser. Jean Bart was never able to see Mass. from what I've read.
Doing a little googleing I found this:

the Jean Bart opened fire on us with two gun salvos and scored several straddles before we were able to withdraw beyond her range. One of these projectiles landed so close to the bow that we rode through its splash drenching the forward half of the ship with its yellow dyed water.

at: http://www.internet-esq.com/ussaugusta/ ... m#November 10, 1942
http://www.internet-esq.com/ussaugusta/torch/
has a photo of one of the straddles and goes on to state:

In the course of each engagement the ship was subjected to accurate and heavy fire by the opposing forces. And yet, although bracketed many times by the projectiles of the enemy, the ship miraculously escaped without damage to herself or injury to the crew. It should be apparent to all that consistent escape from harm was due not alone to skill, or to good luck, but unquestionably to the intervention of divine providence.

[Bgile]

I seem to recall reading that Richelieu had dispersion problems associated with the close proximaty of her muzzles and that these problems weren't solved until late war or possibly post war. Jean Bart was supposed to have been shooting pretty well all things considered during Torch.

Close proximity of guns wouldn't be a problem if they fired one gun from each pair, although I'm not sure their loading arrangements permitted separate elevation of the paired guns. Maybe someone else can elaborate, or come up with a picture showing one gun of a pair elevated.

[lwd]

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_6-55_m1930.htm

Richelieu had delay coils fitted to the center gun of each mount around 1948 in an effort to reduce dispersion.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_15-45_m1935.htm

At the time of her escape, she carried 296 APC rounds, but only 198 quarter charges and her ammunition handling equipment was barely functional.

During the first day of the British attack on the French Fleet at Dakar in September 1940, Richelieu returned fire from Turret II - the crew of Turret I having been placed ashore to man coast defense batteries - but the two starboard guns of this turret both failed at the first salvo. The inner gun No. 7 was shattered and the outer gun No. 8 bulged with the rifling gashed for 8 meters (26 feet). Guns No. 5 and No. 6 remained in action for the rest of the first day, but the next day the gunnery crewmen were switched to Turret I. Rounds fired from this turret used propellant charges that produced less pressure than the ones used on the previous day and thus did not suffer bore prematures. However, these lower pressures also gave significantly less range than estimated which caused fire control problems. Richelieu fired a total of 24 rounds during both days of the battle but she failed to score any hits. A few days after the battle, the French attempted to clear No. 5 and No. 6 guns by fire, but No. 5 gun failed in the same manner as had No. 8 and the gun stuck in the recoil position at an angle of 15 degrees.
... Richelieu had delay coils for the center guns of each turret fitted in 1947-1948 when a tighter dispersion pattern was desired in order to take the maximum advantage of radar fire control. During tests at Mers el-Kébir in May 1948, the measured average dispersion at 26,500 meters (29,000 yards) was 525 meters (575 yards) without the firing delay and 300 meters (330 yards) with a 0.060 second firing delay (at this time the guns had all fired more than 200 shells without refit).
... The rate of fire was hampered by the slow rate in which the hoists could deliver projectiles. Reportedly, gunnery trials in the spring of 1940 for Richelieu achieved no more than 1.33 rounds per minute. However, "French Battleships: 1922 - 1956" states on page 126 that in July 1940 that "it took fifteen minutes to bring up a charge from the magazines to the guns, so the ship was realistically capable of firing only two initial four-gun salvos before her big guns fell silent." Some of the problems must have been rectified, as she was able to fire salvos every two minutes during the British attacks on Dakar in September 1940. Postwar, her reloading gear was modified and improved and she could then fire every 32 seconds. Jean Bart as completed could achieve the same rate of fire.

Tirnou states at: http://www.tank-net.org/forums/lofivers ... 25096.html

I suspect the biggest problem would be the main battery, which never had a proper opportunity to work out its bugs before getting into action. Operation was slow, and dispersion was excessive.

[Bgile]

Wow, sounds like some pretty serious problems with their guns. On paper they were very powerful, but ...

[lwd]

I hadn't realized the extent either until I started looking. I'm still trying to figure out what it all means. For instance I'm not sure how serious the dispersion is but the Richelieu's problmes with her guns / shells sounds pretty bac. Especially since these weren't really repaired until she was refitted in the US.

[RF]

[
Let's assume KGV and Richelieu fully worked up on the summer of 1940. This would negate the radar advantage of the BRitish ship. It's a hypothetical scenario man...

Then it really is hypothetical if you have ships in action before their actual completion date in reality..... it deos make it difficult to comment further without a fictional encounter passing into a fantasy battle that could be played out on computer....

[Thorsten Wahl]

... Richelieu had delay coils for the center guns of each turret fitted in 1947-1948 when a tighter dispersion pattern was desired in order to take the maximum advantage of radar fire control. During tests at Mers el-Kébir in May 1948, the measured average dispersion at 26,500 meters (29,000 yards) was 525 meters (575 yards) without the firing delay and 300 meters (330 yards) with a 0.060 second firing delay (at this time the guns had all fired more than 200 shells without refit).

These were the dispersion figures past reduction of muzzlevelocity during US-refit. The dispersion before refit was reputed with around 1000 yards at less than 20000 yards if i remember correct
.
Additional the earlier french projectiles were of overall slightly lower quality and had greater quality variations. This was documented by the Germans past occupation of france in 1940. i dont know wheter these quality troubles on projectiles also affects french armor or not.

On the other side the Richelieu had a very powerful machinery. The HP output was increased in comparison with the german machines.
aditional the weigth was roughly 500 tons less according with the german piece and it also needs less space on board only 16 m in width, this allowing an very broad TDS. and it seems the machinery was very reliable.

the french machinery needs roughly 8000 m³ in comparison to the german machinery which needs around 14000 m³, in my eyes a quantum leap, the best part of the french ship.

[Gary]

Both ships have pretty good armour schemes.
But I'd trust Richelieu's guns more both in armour penetration and in reliabilty.
If Richelieu can begin to land her salvos on target.........

[yellowtail3]

My money would be on the RN ship.