This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
French battleship Richelieu article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | French battleship Richelieu has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
![]() | French battleship Richelieu is part of the Battleships of France series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The pic of ship arriving in New York harbor has wrong title. It says "Ney York." Can someone fix it? There is no provision for change i can see 80.169.162.100 ( talk) 14:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 19 Jan 2011
Why was this removed without discussion? It was used as a ensign and jack by the FF navy (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Ensigns). The Richelieu fought with the allies and this is sufficiently important to the French for them to allow the use of the FF flag as a jack for ships whose namesakes fought as FF. It also indicates the vessel's allegiance. The FF flag is used elsewhere, so, before there are further deletions, let's get a consensus. I'll not revert for a few days, in case there are particular circumstances for the Richelieu. Folks at 137 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
It is difficult to understand nowadays how strong were the rivalry and perhaps even the hate, between Free French Forces, and North Africa & West Africa French Forces which joined the Allied side, after November 1942, even when everybody was, by then, fighting the Axis forces.
The Free French Forces were these which joined General De Gaulle from 1940 to November 1943, while the Vichy Forces were respecting the clauses of the 1940 armistices between France and Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. But...
. <sp an class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul-Pierre Valli ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
In July 1942, Fighting France was substituated to Free France, to show the unity of the Free French Forces, fighting over the seas, and the Resistance in the homeland, but this did not interfere with the feelings of the Free Frenchmen about Vichy. Paul-Pierre Valli ( talk) 02:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
To sum up the debate, till November 1942, the Free Frenchmen, proud of their fights and of the sacrifice of their dead, had no consideration for those which had not fought the Axis Forces since three years. They were thinking that the fidelity to Marshal Pétain was a form of treason.
On the other side, most of the soldiers and sailors of the Army of the Armistice thought that they had to be respectful of the Marshal Pétain's Government legality, and to obey his orders. Captain l'Herminier, who escaped from Toulon, on November 27, 1942, as he was in command of the submarine Casabianca, preferring to flee to Algiers, rather to scuttle his ship, wrote that the illness which led to replace him as Commanding Officer of submarine Sidi Ferruch, in early 1941, saved his life, otherwise he would have died with this submarine, lost off Casablanca, on November 8, 1942.
They were considering that the French Forces had the right to counterattack those which were attacking them, even if they had been formerly allies. For them, the heroism of their dead was not less admirable, because they had been killed, by British shells or torpedoes, on the battleships Bretagne or Dunkerque, at Mers-el-Kebir, on the sloop Rigault de Genouilly torpedoed by the submarine HMS Pandora off Oran, in July 1940, on the destroyer L'Audacieux, or on the submarines Persée and Ajax sunk at Dakar, on the submarine Poncelet sunk by the sloop HMS Milford, in the Gulf of Guinea, by November 1940, on the destroyer Chevalier Paul torpedoed off Lebanon, in 1941, or on the submarines Heros, Monge and Beveziers sunk off Diego-Suarez, by May 1942.
However, there never was any complicity with the German Forces, nor operation carried out with them. And some ones were able to find the right way when things became clearer : the most extraordinary story is the one of the submarine Marsouin which escaped from Algiers to flee to Toulon, on November 8, 1942, and escaped from Toulon, and steered to Algiers, on November 27!
The events of November 8 to 11, 1942, in North Africa, in a first time, worsened the minds confusion.
The hopeless gallantry of Admiral Gervais de Lafont's 2nd Light Squadron, against the American warships in Casablanca contrasted with the attitude of Admiral Esteva and Admiral Derrien in Bizerte, as if the Vichy Forces comportement had to be different in face of these, Allied or German forces, which were attacking. And in Tunisia, the French land forces waited nearly ten days before countering the General Nehring's German forces, at Medjez-el-Bab. Finally, the French forces in North Africa joined the Allies, but Admiral Godefroy, in Alexandria, and Admiral Robert, in Martinique, will wait till May-June 1943, to rally the Allies, with the Naval forces they had under their autority.
By late May, all the Axis forces in Tunisia have surrendered. But there was so few brotherhood of arms between the Free French Forces and the French Africa Forces, that, for the march past of Victory in Tunis, on May 23, 1943, the Free French Forces were with the British 8th Army, and the French Africa Army 19th Corps was with the American troops.
By then, in 1943, the problem was no longer between Free France and Vichy, but between these who, since 1940, followed General de Gaulle, and those who had followed Marshal Pétain, and the question was : who will command whom ? In Algiers, the struggle was hard, between General de Gaulle and General Giraud, and on various subjects. One of the main problems was to know which admirals will have the most important commands.
After the scuttling of Toulon, the French warships represented roughly 284,000 tons afloat:
The Free French Forces were the weakest, but it was inconceivable for them to be under orders of Admirals who had too much complied to Vichy orders, as Admiral Michelier, who had been Commander-in-Chief French Naval Forces at Casablanca, on November 8 to 11, 1942. So, in early 1943, there were two Chefs d'Etat-major de la Marine (C.E.E.M.), Admiral Collinet, formerly Commanding Officer of the battleship Strasbourg, when she escaped from Mers-el-Kebir, for the French Naval Forces in Africa, and Admiral Auboyneau for the French Naval Forces in Great Britain, who escaped from Alexandria, by August 1940, to join General de Gaulle.
It was necessary to re-group and merge all the ships into one force, except for the few ships which were compelled to remain in Indo-China. In the event this was not achieved until the end of the summer of 1943 owing to political and psychological difficulties resulting of the dispute between De Gaulle and Giraud (cf.Henri Le Masson, The French Navy Volume 1, published by Macdonald & co, in Paris, 1969, p.51-53). In "De Gaulle et Giraud L'affrontement 1942-1944", by Michèle Cointet, published by Editions Perrin, Paris, 2005, ISBN 2-262-02023-X, in p. 308-322, and p.363-365, it can be found indications about the Gaullist operations carried out, during the 1943 year, to recruit, even in the U.S. harbours, sailors of merchant ships, and in North Africa, sailors of warships, or soldiers of the land army units which were under General Giraud authority. Gaullists were using the aura of Free French Forces, promising also a better pay, and taking avantage of the noxious climate on merchant ships or warships between the Vichyst minded officers and Gaullist sailors, as on battleship Richelieu, where Captain Deramond, Commanding Officer from February 1941 to April 1943, was reproached to have publicly called Churchill bastard and Roosevelt villain, and to have kept on board Marshal Pétain's portraits.
On August 4, 1943, Admiral Lemonnier, formerly Commanding Officer of the cruiser Georges Leygues at Dakar, became the unique Chef d'Etat-major of the French Navy. As in the mean time the French Comitee of the National Liberation has been created , there was no reason to keep a dictinct organisation for the former Free French Forces: this is the meaning of the "instruction ministérielle du 29 juillet 1953".
Concerning the Free French bow ensign, with the Cross of Lorraine, neither the Free Frenchmen would have accepted it was set up on warships as Richelieu, nor most of the officers of Richelieu would have even wanted to raise it.
Nowadays, the Free French naval enseign may be hoisted, as bow flag, only on the last remaining ships of the Free French Naval Forces, the goelettes Etoile and La Belle Poule, school ships of the École navale, and on ships which bear the name of warships of the Free French Naval Forces, as the nuclear attack submarine Rubis, or the stealth frigates Surcouf, Courbet, Aconit, because the submarine-minelayer Rubis, the large submarine Surcouf , the corvette Aconit and the old dreadnought Courbet were part of the Free French Navy Forces. Paul-Pierre Valli ( talk) 02:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Are we sure about this? This link does not have Richelieu on it, and this link says this:
Drydocked at Durban that summer, Richelieu did not complete that stint of repairs in time to participate in the final act of the war in the Pacific. She arrived at Trincomalee on 18 August 1945 - three days after Japan announced their acceptance of the unconditional surrender terms of the Potsdam Declaration. The war with Japan was over.
Does anyone have a reliable source that says Richelieu was there? — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
According to our List of Allied ships at the Japanese surrender article, your battleship was noticeably absent. Didn't check the CINCPAC link at the bottom though. TomStar81 ( Talk) 16:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)I have the definitive French-language book on Richelieu by Sarnet and le Vaillant, which I will check tomorrow then reference accordingly in the article. -- Simon Harley ( talk | library | book reviews) 13:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC) took part to a large
In "Les derniers cuirassés", by Rear Admiral Lepotier, published in 1967, by Les Editions France-Empire, Paris, p. 241-242, it can be read that "Richelieu", which had left Trincomale on September 5, 1945, with the large destroyer "Triomphant", was struck by a mine, on September 9, at 07:44, in the Strait of Malacca. She moored in Singapore, on Septembre 11, at 11:30. On late afternoon, General Leclec came on board to dinner. On September 12, Admiral Mountbatten received the surrender of General Itagaki, at the City Hall of Singapore. With General Leclerc, the Commanding Officer of "Richelieu", Captain Merveilleux du Vignaux, and a sailor of the battleship represented the French Forces, in the Allied Armies delegation. After this ceremony, the landing corps of "Richelieu", strong of 250 sailors, took part to a large march past. At noon, Admiral Walker, Commander-in-Chief East Indies Fleet ordered orally to Commanding Officer,"Richelieu", to return to Tricomale, as soon as possible. At 16:30, the battleship get under way, with the"HMS Relentless", and arrived "Trinco" on September 16.
On September 2, "Richelieu" was not at the surrender of Japan, in Tokyo Bay, where General Leclerc represented France. Paul-Pierre Valli ( talk) 00:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it, hitting a thinner target (from left to right) at long range is substantially easier than hitting a shallow target (front to back). A battleship facing the enemy would then present an easier target than one oriented perpendicular to same. Why does this article claim the opposite as an advantage of the design? Is there a source to verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer884 ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm just gonna give this a little while and then reword this part so that it doesn't mention the "small target" bit if no one brings up any evidence. J.M. Archer ( talk) 20:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm struggling to see what the fuss is about here. This is the section of the article which provoked all this I assume:
“ | On the other hand, the entirety of the main artillery was able to fire forwards, as the ship closed in to her enemy, in an angle where she made the smallest possible target. | ” |
This makes it sound like the issue of "danger space" was a factor in her design. Nothing I've seen in English or French has ever specifically suggested this.
Go buy a book called Naval Firepower by Professor Norman Friedman and actually read up on naval gunnery Archer884. You're making some pretty bold assertions here which don't hold up. -- Simon Harley ( talk | library | book reviews) 08:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Found a source! This actually supports the article's current assertion that Richelieu would definitely present a smaller target end-on (though whether she'd be safer at that angle is still a question her deck armor would probably have to answer).
Found here: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm
One of the nice guys at NavWeaps.com pointed out this table (titled "Accuracy During WWII"), taken from a study by the Naval War College that pitted the American Iowa Class against Bismarck at varying ranges and angles of attack:
At 10,000 yards, the ratio of broadside to end-on hits is 1.47:1.
At 20,000 yards, the ratio worsens to 2.56:1.
At 30,000 yards, the ratio improves slightly to 1.92:1.
Now, being a nub, I have no idea if this is considered a valid source, and, if it is, I don't know how to add a source to the article. Maybe one of you fellows can help?
Anyway, it seems you guys were all right. Apparently, once guns do have the right range, shot fall patterns for each individual broadside tend to be relatively shallow and wide -- it's the overall patterns for several successive broadsides that seem long and thin, as the diagrams in that earlier source reveal. J.M. Archer ( talk) 04:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC) :D
I'm new here, so didn't want to edit directly. This site looks like it has more exact dates for when the ship was laid down, commissioned, etc. Please make the updates if this is acceptable. http://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=107 24.6.176.195 ( talk) 05:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Keri Morgret
In "Le Cuirassé Richelieu 1935-1968" by Robert Dumas, published by Marine éditions, 2001, in Nantes, ISBN 2-909675-75-0, p. 8, it can be found some precise data, but there is some difficulty to translate them in English, as the French Navy does not officially use some British terms, as "commissionned", but "armé". It can be read:
Building dates
Robert Dumas gives an interesting precision, in a margin note : Richelieu's admittance in active service was never officially prononced. The ship is declared available, October 10, 1943, the day the refit in New York Navy Yard is declared completed. Following the "French Navy Monthly Activity Reports", admittance on service list is reported, by November 1943, but without precise day. In "Les Derniers Cuirassés", by Rear Admiral Lepotier, published by Editions France-Empire, in Paris, 1969, it can be found, p. 43-46, some interesting details, on the way the gunnery and speed trials were carried out in 1940, interruption of speed trials on April 14, 1940, following detection of a submarine, gunnery shots trials reported to have been carried out "without major damage", by June. Arriving to Dakar, by late June, the loading of the main artillery guns lasts one quarter of hour to hoist one shell and powder charge from magazine to gun. Paul-Pierre Valli ( talk) 11:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I did the 1 March 2011 edit. Wiki logs me out without warning if I spend more than a few minutes working on an edit without previewing or something.
Mostly I fixed non-anglophone usages ("battery" for "artillery", "in" for "on"). Some formatting clean-up, removed many excess links, rephrasing to clarify opening section. There was an error: the original light AA was described as 13.7mm in one place, instead of 13.2mm. Also spelling errors, and run-on sentences.
Rich Rostrom ( Talk) 20:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
User:JRPG explained his edit (16:09, 10 January 2013 ) about Richelieu 's speed, with «Remove 'Her speed was surpassed only by the fastest U.S. Navy battleships.' Faster than contemporary US and British ships yes, but Bismarck and Littorio seem at least similar speeds». May I not completely agree ? In the Siegfried Breyer's book, «Battleships and battle cruisers 1905–1970» (1973, London, Macdonald and Jane's, ISBN 0-356-04191-3) cited in the article bibliography, we can read the Richelieu 's speed was 30 knots (p.436), as Littorio(p.386), and Bismarck was credited with 29 knots (p.300). But in the same pages, the speed reached during trial runs of 32.0 knots is indicated for Richelieu (32.13 knots for Jean-Bart), 31.42 knots for Vittorio Veneto (and 31.29 for Littorio), 30.1 knots for Bismarck (and 30.8 knots for Tirpitz). Paul-Pierre Valli ( talk) 13:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a great article with a huge amount of well referenced material. I think, though, that some of the writing, while creative, is overly complex. I've simplified the second paragraph in the introductory section and I would appreciate opinions on whether the new version is easier to understand. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmcdill ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on French battleship Richelieu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: CPA-5 ( talk · contribs) 21:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey, mate long time no see ;) I will review this article as soon as possible. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 21:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Lead
More to come. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 05:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Body
More to come. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 09:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll do the image, infobox and the sources tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 19:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Infobox
Sources
Images
That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 10:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
hi, I may have read over the point where the article says this. the ship is detached to Eastern Fleet "because only armor piercing ammunition is available" after being "specially made in the US based on plans sent from dakar" but then seemingly the next mission is shore bombardment. Where did the ammunition suddenly come from? thanks for clarifying. 84.215.194.53 ( talk) 84.215.194.53 ( talk) 12:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
French battleship Richelieu article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | French battleship Richelieu has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
![]() | French battleship Richelieu is part of the Battleships of France series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The pic of ship arriving in New York harbor has wrong title. It says "Ney York." Can someone fix it? There is no provision for change i can see 80.169.162.100 ( talk) 14:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 19 Jan 2011
Why was this removed without discussion? It was used as a ensign and jack by the FF navy (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Ensigns). The Richelieu fought with the allies and this is sufficiently important to the French for them to allow the use of the FF flag as a jack for ships whose namesakes fought as FF. It also indicates the vessel's allegiance. The FF flag is used elsewhere, so, before there are further deletions, let's get a consensus. I'll not revert for a few days, in case there are particular circumstances for the Richelieu. Folks at 137 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
It is difficult to understand nowadays how strong were the rivalry and perhaps even the hate, between Free French Forces, and North Africa & West Africa French Forces which joined the Allied side, after November 1942, even when everybody was, by then, fighting the Axis forces.
The Free French Forces were these which joined General De Gaulle from 1940 to November 1943, while the Vichy Forces were respecting the clauses of the 1940 armistices between France and Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. But...
. <sp an class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul-Pierre Valli ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
In July 1942, Fighting France was substituated to Free France, to show the unity of the Free French Forces, fighting over the seas, and the Resistance in the homeland, but this did not interfere with the feelings of the Free Frenchmen about Vichy. Paul-Pierre Valli ( talk) 02:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
To sum up the debate, till November 1942, the Free Frenchmen, proud of their fights and of the sacrifice of their dead, had no consideration for those which had not fought the Axis Forces since three years. They were thinking that the fidelity to Marshal Pétain was a form of treason.
On the other side, most of the soldiers and sailors of the Army of the Armistice thought that they had to be respectful of the Marshal Pétain's Government legality, and to obey his orders. Captain l'Herminier, who escaped from Toulon, on November 27, 1942, as he was in command of the submarine Casabianca, preferring to flee to Algiers, rather to scuttle his ship, wrote that the illness which led to replace him as Commanding Officer of submarine Sidi Ferruch, in early 1941, saved his life, otherwise he would have died with this submarine, lost off Casablanca, on November 8, 1942.
They were considering that the French Forces had the right to counterattack those which were attacking them, even if they had been formerly allies. For them, the heroism of their dead was not less admirable, because they had been killed, by British shells or torpedoes, on the battleships Bretagne or Dunkerque, at Mers-el-Kebir, on the sloop Rigault de Genouilly torpedoed by the submarine HMS Pandora off Oran, in July 1940, on the destroyer L'Audacieux, or on the submarines Persée and Ajax sunk at Dakar, on the submarine Poncelet sunk by the sloop HMS Milford, in the Gulf of Guinea, by November 1940, on the destroyer Chevalier Paul torpedoed off Lebanon, in 1941, or on the submarines Heros, Monge and Beveziers sunk off Diego-Suarez, by May 1942.
However, there never was any complicity with the German Forces, nor operation carried out with them. And some ones were able to find the right way when things became clearer : the most extraordinary story is the one of the submarine Marsouin which escaped from Algiers to flee to Toulon, on November 8, 1942, and escaped from Toulon, and steered to Algiers, on November 27!
The events of November 8 to 11, 1942, in North Africa, in a first time, worsened the minds confusion.
The hopeless gallantry of Admiral Gervais de Lafont's 2nd Light Squadron, against the American warships in Casablanca contrasted with the attitude of Admiral Esteva and Admiral Derrien in Bizerte, as if the Vichy Forces comportement had to be different in face of these, Allied or German forces, which were attacking. And in Tunisia, the French land forces waited nearly ten days before countering the General Nehring's German forces, at Medjez-el-Bab. Finally, the French forces in North Africa joined the Allies, but Admiral Godefroy, in Alexandria, and Admiral Robert, in Martinique, will wait till May-June 1943, to rally the Allies, with the Naval forces they had under their autority.
By late May, all the Axis forces in Tunisia have surrendered. But there was so few brotherhood of arms between the Free French Forces and the French Africa Forces, that, for the march past of Victory in Tunis, on May 23, 1943, the Free French Forces were with the British 8th Army, and the French Africa Army 19th Corps was with the American troops.
By then, in 1943, the problem was no longer between Free France and Vichy, but between these who, since 1940, followed General de Gaulle, and those who had followed Marshal Pétain, and the question was : who will command whom ? In Algiers, the struggle was hard, between General de Gaulle and General Giraud, and on various subjects. One of the main problems was to know which admirals will have the most important commands.
After the scuttling of Toulon, the French warships represented roughly 284,000 tons afloat:
The Free French Forces were the weakest, but it was inconceivable for them to be under orders of Admirals who had too much complied to Vichy orders, as Admiral Michelier, who had been Commander-in-Chief French Naval Forces at Casablanca, on November 8 to 11, 1942. So, in early 1943, there were two Chefs d'Etat-major de la Marine (C.E.E.M.), Admiral Collinet, formerly Commanding Officer of the battleship Strasbourg, when she escaped from Mers-el-Kebir, for the French Naval Forces in Africa, and Admiral Auboyneau for the French Naval Forces in Great Britain, who escaped from Alexandria, by August 1940, to join General de Gaulle.
It was necessary to re-group and merge all the ships into one force, except for the few ships which were compelled to remain in Indo-China. In the event this was not achieved until the end of the summer of 1943 owing to political and psychological difficulties resulting of the dispute between De Gaulle and Giraud (cf.Henri Le Masson, The French Navy Volume 1, published by Macdonald & co, in Paris, 1969, p.51-53). In "De Gaulle et Giraud L'affrontement 1942-1944", by Michèle Cointet, published by Editions Perrin, Paris, 2005, ISBN 2-262-02023-X, in p. 308-322, and p.363-365, it can be found indications about the Gaullist operations carried out, during the 1943 year, to recruit, even in the U.S. harbours, sailors of merchant ships, and in North Africa, sailors of warships, or soldiers of the land army units which were under General Giraud authority. Gaullists were using the aura of Free French Forces, promising also a better pay, and taking avantage of the noxious climate on merchant ships or warships between the Vichyst minded officers and Gaullist sailors, as on battleship Richelieu, where Captain Deramond, Commanding Officer from February 1941 to April 1943, was reproached to have publicly called Churchill bastard and Roosevelt villain, and to have kept on board Marshal Pétain's portraits.
On August 4, 1943, Admiral Lemonnier, formerly Commanding Officer of the cruiser Georges Leygues at Dakar, became the unique Chef d'Etat-major of the French Navy. As in the mean time the French Comitee of the National Liberation has been created , there was no reason to keep a dictinct organisation for the former Free French Forces: this is the meaning of the "instruction ministérielle du 29 juillet 1953".
Concerning the Free French bow ensign, with the Cross of Lorraine, neither the Free Frenchmen would have accepted it was set up on warships as Richelieu, nor most of the officers of Richelieu would have even wanted to raise it.
Nowadays, the Free French naval enseign may be hoisted, as bow flag, only on the last remaining ships of the Free French Naval Forces, the goelettes Etoile and La Belle Poule, school ships of the École navale, and on ships which bear the name of warships of the Free French Naval Forces, as the nuclear attack submarine Rubis, or the stealth frigates Surcouf, Courbet, Aconit, because the submarine-minelayer Rubis, the large submarine Surcouf , the corvette Aconit and the old dreadnought Courbet were part of the Free French Navy Forces. Paul-Pierre Valli ( talk) 02:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Are we sure about this? This link does not have Richelieu on it, and this link says this:
Drydocked at Durban that summer, Richelieu did not complete that stint of repairs in time to participate in the final act of the war in the Pacific. She arrived at Trincomalee on 18 August 1945 - three days after Japan announced their acceptance of the unconditional surrender terms of the Potsdam Declaration. The war with Japan was over.
Does anyone have a reliable source that says Richelieu was there? — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
According to our List of Allied ships at the Japanese surrender article, your battleship was noticeably absent. Didn't check the CINCPAC link at the bottom though. TomStar81 ( Talk) 16:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)I have the definitive French-language book on Richelieu by Sarnet and le Vaillant, which I will check tomorrow then reference accordingly in the article. -- Simon Harley ( talk | library | book reviews) 13:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC) took part to a large
In "Les derniers cuirassés", by Rear Admiral Lepotier, published in 1967, by Les Editions France-Empire, Paris, p. 241-242, it can be read that "Richelieu", which had left Trincomale on September 5, 1945, with the large destroyer "Triomphant", was struck by a mine, on September 9, at 07:44, in the Strait of Malacca. She moored in Singapore, on Septembre 11, at 11:30. On late afternoon, General Leclec came on board to dinner. On September 12, Admiral Mountbatten received the surrender of General Itagaki, at the City Hall of Singapore. With General Leclerc, the Commanding Officer of "Richelieu", Captain Merveilleux du Vignaux, and a sailor of the battleship represented the French Forces, in the Allied Armies delegation. After this ceremony, the landing corps of "Richelieu", strong of 250 sailors, took part to a large march past. At noon, Admiral Walker, Commander-in-Chief East Indies Fleet ordered orally to Commanding Officer,"Richelieu", to return to Tricomale, as soon as possible. At 16:30, the battleship get under way, with the"HMS Relentless", and arrived "Trinco" on September 16.
On September 2, "Richelieu" was not at the surrender of Japan, in Tokyo Bay, where General Leclerc represented France. Paul-Pierre Valli ( talk) 00:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it, hitting a thinner target (from left to right) at long range is substantially easier than hitting a shallow target (front to back). A battleship facing the enemy would then present an easier target than one oriented perpendicular to same. Why does this article claim the opposite as an advantage of the design? Is there a source to verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer884 ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm just gonna give this a little while and then reword this part so that it doesn't mention the "small target" bit if no one brings up any evidence. J.M. Archer ( talk) 20:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm struggling to see what the fuss is about here. This is the section of the article which provoked all this I assume:
“ | On the other hand, the entirety of the main artillery was able to fire forwards, as the ship closed in to her enemy, in an angle where she made the smallest possible target. | ” |
This makes it sound like the issue of "danger space" was a factor in her design. Nothing I've seen in English or French has ever specifically suggested this.
Go buy a book called Naval Firepower by Professor Norman Friedman and actually read up on naval gunnery Archer884. You're making some pretty bold assertions here which don't hold up. -- Simon Harley ( talk | library | book reviews) 08:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Found a source! This actually supports the article's current assertion that Richelieu would definitely present a smaller target end-on (though whether she'd be safer at that angle is still a question her deck armor would probably have to answer).
Found here: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm
One of the nice guys at NavWeaps.com pointed out this table (titled "Accuracy During WWII"), taken from a study by the Naval War College that pitted the American Iowa Class against Bismarck at varying ranges and angles of attack:
At 10,000 yards, the ratio of broadside to end-on hits is 1.47:1.
At 20,000 yards, the ratio worsens to 2.56:1.
At 30,000 yards, the ratio improves slightly to 1.92:1.
Now, being a nub, I have no idea if this is considered a valid source, and, if it is, I don't know how to add a source to the article. Maybe one of you fellows can help?
Anyway, it seems you guys were all right. Apparently, once guns do have the right range, shot fall patterns for each individual broadside tend to be relatively shallow and wide -- it's the overall patterns for several successive broadsides that seem long and thin, as the diagrams in that earlier source reveal. J.M. Archer ( talk) 04:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC) :D
I'm new here, so didn't want to edit directly. This site looks like it has more exact dates for when the ship was laid down, commissioned, etc. Please make the updates if this is acceptable. http://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=107 24.6.176.195 ( talk) 05:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Keri Morgret
In "Le Cuirassé Richelieu 1935-1968" by Robert Dumas, published by Marine éditions, 2001, in Nantes, ISBN 2-909675-75-0, p. 8, it can be found some precise data, but there is some difficulty to translate them in English, as the French Navy does not officially use some British terms, as "commissionned", but "armé". It can be read:
Building dates
Robert Dumas gives an interesting precision, in a margin note : Richelieu's admittance in active service was never officially prononced. The ship is declared available, October 10, 1943, the day the refit in New York Navy Yard is declared completed. Following the "French Navy Monthly Activity Reports", admittance on service list is reported, by November 1943, but without precise day. In "Les Derniers Cuirassés", by Rear Admiral Lepotier, published by Editions France-Empire, in Paris, 1969, it can be found, p. 43-46, some interesting details, on the way the gunnery and speed trials were carried out in 1940, interruption of speed trials on April 14, 1940, following detection of a submarine, gunnery shots trials reported to have been carried out "without major damage", by June. Arriving to Dakar, by late June, the loading of the main artillery guns lasts one quarter of hour to hoist one shell and powder charge from magazine to gun. Paul-Pierre Valli ( talk) 11:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I did the 1 March 2011 edit. Wiki logs me out without warning if I spend more than a few minutes working on an edit without previewing or something.
Mostly I fixed non-anglophone usages ("battery" for "artillery", "in" for "on"). Some formatting clean-up, removed many excess links, rephrasing to clarify opening section. There was an error: the original light AA was described as 13.7mm in one place, instead of 13.2mm. Also spelling errors, and run-on sentences.
Rich Rostrom ( Talk) 20:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
User:JRPG explained his edit (16:09, 10 January 2013 ) about Richelieu 's speed, with «Remove 'Her speed was surpassed only by the fastest U.S. Navy battleships.' Faster than contemporary US and British ships yes, but Bismarck and Littorio seem at least similar speeds». May I not completely agree ? In the Siegfried Breyer's book, «Battleships and battle cruisers 1905–1970» (1973, London, Macdonald and Jane's, ISBN 0-356-04191-3) cited in the article bibliography, we can read the Richelieu 's speed was 30 knots (p.436), as Littorio(p.386), and Bismarck was credited with 29 knots (p.300). But in the same pages, the speed reached during trial runs of 32.0 knots is indicated for Richelieu (32.13 knots for Jean-Bart), 31.42 knots for Vittorio Veneto (and 31.29 for Littorio), 30.1 knots for Bismarck (and 30.8 knots for Tirpitz). Paul-Pierre Valli ( talk) 13:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a great article with a huge amount of well referenced material. I think, though, that some of the writing, while creative, is overly complex. I've simplified the second paragraph in the introductory section and I would appreciate opinions on whether the new version is easier to understand. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmcdill ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on French battleship Richelieu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: CPA-5 ( talk · contribs) 21:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey, mate long time no see ;) I will review this article as soon as possible. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 21:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Lead
More to come. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 05:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Body
More to come. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 09:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll do the image, infobox and the sources tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 19:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Infobox
Sources
Images
That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 ( talk) 10:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
hi, I may have read over the point where the article says this. the ship is detached to Eastern Fleet "because only armor piercing ammunition is available" after being "specially made in the US based on plans sent from dakar" but then seemingly the next mission is shore bombardment. Where did the ammunition suddenly come from? thanks for clarifying. 84.215.194.53 ( talk) 84.215.194.53 ( talk) 12:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)