While not built for the same role or in the same timeframe, all these ships are relatively close to each other regarding displacement, speed and main weapons caliber. OK, so the italian ships are a bit of an outlier(smaller and slower), but I though it warrants including them since at least Dunkerque was designed to fight them.
It would be interesting to know which ships were best value for money. I haven't been able to find cost for these ships, only that Alaskas were not that much cheaper to build or run than an Iowa and that the italian ships were not seen as cost effective compared to just building new ships.
I'm most intrigued by several things.... Dunkerques are listed as having about 27 000 tons standard displacement, which is considerablly less than the Alaskas and Scharnost, but they do pack the biggest punch and, at least Strasbourg, have pretty good armour. But they also list these ships as about 36 000 full load, which is cca 1500 tons more than the Alaska and about 2000 tons less than the Scharnhorst at full load. Now, looking at the dimensions, french ships are by far the smallest of the three in all 3 dimensions(thus the standard displacement being less makes sense), so the question I have is in which scenario can they displace as much/more water as these bigger ships? It doesn't compute for me, maybe someone will have an explanation as to where nearly additional 9000 tons at full load went.
The other thing that bugs me is Alaskas... Why are they so large? They are neither the most powerful(although probably very similar to Dunkerque main armament), nor the best protected. No elaborate TDS even AFAIK, while the other 3 all have decent anti torpedo protection. Scharnhorst was also a very large ship for having 9 11" guns, but it was much better protected(apart from deck protection) and planned to be upgraded to 6 15" inch guns.
The Dunkerques(especially Strasbourg) seem like the best ship of the 4, pretty good offensive punch, decent to good armour, good speed. I know they had problems with main guns and dispersion, but they were solvable, given time(and money). I wonder if the french were really better going with more Strasbourgs, rather than streching the naval infrastructure to it's limits with Richelieus, and investing the excess tonage into something else. But I guess, prestige with bigger guns is also what mattered.
It would be interesting to know which ships were best value for money. I haven't been able to find cost for these ships, only that Alaskas were not that much cheaper to build or run than an Iowa and that the italian ships were not seen as cost effective compared to just building new ships.
I'm most intrigued by several things.... Dunkerques are listed as having about 27 000 tons standard displacement, which is considerablly less than the Alaskas and Scharnost, but they do pack the biggest punch and, at least Strasbourg, have pretty good armour. But they also list these ships as about 36 000 full load, which is cca 1500 tons more than the Alaska and about 2000 tons less than the Scharnhorst at full load. Now, looking at the dimensions, french ships are by far the smallest of the three in all 3 dimensions(thus the standard displacement being less makes sense), so the question I have is in which scenario can they displace as much/more water as these bigger ships? It doesn't compute for me, maybe someone will have an explanation as to where nearly additional 9000 tons at full load went.
The other thing that bugs me is Alaskas... Why are they so large? They are neither the most powerful(although probably very similar to Dunkerque main armament), nor the best protected. No elaborate TDS even AFAIK, while the other 3 all have decent anti torpedo protection. Scharnhorst was also a very large ship for having 9 11" guns, but it was much better protected(apart from deck protection) and planned to be upgraded to 6 15" inch guns.
The Dunkerques(especially Strasbourg) seem like the best ship of the 4, pretty good offensive punch, decent to good armour, good speed. I know they had problems with main guns and dispersion, but they were solvable, given time(and money). I wonder if the french were really better going with more Strasbourgs, rather than streching the naval infrastructure to it's limits with Richelieus, and investing the excess tonage into something else. But I guess, prestige with bigger guns is also what mattered.
statistics: Posted by Argosy24 — 5:58 PM - 1 day ago — Replies 16 — Views 407