Jump to content

Heavy cruisers Dupleix and Foch, the better cruisers of the Suffren class


Arghail
 Share

Heavy cruisers Foch and Dupleix  

9 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you like to see these ships in game ?

    • Yes
      8
    • Yes, as a premium
      1
    • No
      0
  2. 2. Which variant would you like to see as a premium ?

    • The original Suffren and Colbert
      0
    • The enhanced Foch and Dupleix
      3
    • None of them
      1
    • All 4 of them
      5


Heavy cruisers Foch and Dupleix

The better versions of the Suffren class

colbert.gif

 

 

About the Foch and the Dupleix class and their interest in War Thunder

 

 Although the Suffren as a class leader has already been suggested on this forum, I think the differences between the first two ships of the class and the last two are enough to justify a suggestion in itself. Indeed, with the addition of a better armor configuration and a better secondary armament, I think it would make a good difference between a potential premium and a main tech tree variant, for example.

 

About the Suffren class.

 

With the evolution of naval warfare during WW1 and the limitations imposed by the Washington treaty in the 1920's, the French navy decided to develop new classes of heavy warships to modernize its old fleet, which never got to finish its cancelled battleship classes. The Duquesne class was the first class of heavy cruiser of the French navy. But while their developpement hadn't even begun construction, Italy had already begun the creation of their own better armored cruisers, the Trento and Trieste classes. Therefore, a second class of heavy cruiser, opting for a better armor was being studied in 1924. The requirement for this class was a max displacement of 10 000  a specific armament of 203mm canons, 75mm AA, 550mm torpedoes, a max speed of 30 knots at least and enough protection to block 140mm shells, as well as enough durability to handle a torpedo hit or a 100kg bomb explosion. The Suffren class was born. 4 ships were going to be built in the following years : The Suffren (may 1927), the Colbert (April 1928), the Foch (June 1928) and the Dupleix (October 1930).

 

About the Foch and the Dupleix :

 

These two ships were the second batch of the class, and their construction, which began a bit later, took into account the fast evolution of heavy cruiser designs from rivals, especially Italy. As such, it opted for a better armor by abandonning armored belts and replacing them with armored boxes supposed to give a better protection against more or less flat shell trajectories. The sides of this armoured box was 54 mm (60mm for the Dupleix) with the deck above of the armoured box being 18mm (30mm for the Dupleix). AA armament was also enhanced, by replacing the 75mm by 90mm canons. The Foch also had a very different tripod mast to accomodate for French modern telemetry, and this specificity was used in the conception of its successor, the Algérie, a few years later.

Used to track German raiders, both ship were integrated to the Force X in 1939 and mostly operated along the coasts of the Meditteranean and Africa, given that their autonomy wasn't really fit for oceanic operations. The constant hunt for the Graff Spee and its sister ships didn't bear any results though, and after the Battle of the Rio de la Plata, both ships came back to Toulon. The evolution of the war stranded them there, until Italy declared war. The Foch participated in Operation Vado, and fired upon the industrial installations of the city of Genoa with the rest of the task force. The Armistice stranded both the Foch and the Dupleix in the port of Toulon. During that time, they benefitted from a few enhancements, most notably the addition of a radar and a few AA defenses. Ultimately though, they were scuttled along with the rest of the fleet in 1942.

 

General Characteristics :

   
Tonnage:

11504 (Foch) 11516 (Dupleix) (standard)

13644 (Foch) 13621 (Dupleix) (max)

Length:

194 m

Beam: 19.26 m
Draught: 6.57 m
   
Propulsion:

 Rateau Bretagne steam turbines

 90 000 HP

Cruise speed :

Max Speed:

   29 knots (46 km/h)     

   32 knots (60.4 km/h)

Range:

5300 nautical miles at 15 knots

Crew :             752 men  

 

Armor :

 

Armored box :  sides : 54mm (Foch), 60mm (Dupleix) deck : 18mm (Foch), 30mm (Dupleix)

Ammo racks : 54mm (Foch), 60mm (Dupleix)

Crown : 20mm (Foch), 30mm (Dupleix)

Bridge and turrets : 30mm

 

Armament (Foch, 1939) :

 

- 8 x 203mm mle 1924 canons (4 x 2)

- 8 x 90mm mle 1926 AA canons (8 x 1)

- 6 x 37mm mle 1933 AA canons (3 x 2)

- 14 x 13.5mm AA machineguns (3 x 4, 2 x 1)
- 6 x 550mm TLT mle 1925T (2 x 3)

 

Armament (Dupleix, 1939) :

 

- 8 x 203mm mle 1924 canons (4 x 2)

- 8 x 90mm mle 1926 AA canons (4 x 2)

- 6 x 37mm mle 1933 AA canons (3 x 2)

- 14 x 13.5mm AA machineguns (3 x 4, 2 x 1)
- 6 x 550mm TLT mle 1925T (2 x 3)

 

Regarding the  203mm mle 1924 :

 

Spoiler

 

Regarding the 90mm guns Schneider mle. 1926

 

Hide contents

 

53115490mm_4.jpg

78686090mm_2.jpg

 

Fires 18kg explosive shells at over 15540m at a rate of 12 to 15 shots per minutes.

More infos : http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_35-50_m1926.php

 

Regarding the AA canons :
 

Hide contents

35369037mm_modele_1933_Le_Triomphant_194

37MM MLE 1933
SPECS :

depression : -15°, +80°

rotation : 360°

SHELLS :

Max range : 7 000m

Rate of fire : 15-21 rpm

 

More infos : http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_37-50_cail_m1933.php


943535WNFR_13mm_aamg_sketch_pic.jpg

13.2MM MLE 1929
SPECS :

depression : -10°, +90°

rotation : 360°

SHELLS :

Max range : 7 200m

Rate of fire : 200-250 rpm

 

PHOTOS :

 

Schematics and plans

 

 

Foch :

 

Armor schematics :
 

Spoiler

FOCH1929C019.png

 

Photos :

 

Spoiler

ca_foc12.jpg(1931)

ca_foc13.jpg

ca_foc14.jpg (1939)

ca_foc16.jpg

ca_foc15.jpg (1942)

 

Dupleix :

 

Spoiler

ca_dup11.jpg (1933)

ca_dup13.jpg

ca_dup12.jpg (1937)

ca_dup14.jpg (1938)

ca_dup15.jpg (1940)

ca_dup17.jpg (1942)

 

 

Sources :

 

https://forummarine.forumactif.com/t9427-croiseurs-lourds-classe-suffren-france-termine?highlight=Suffren

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffren-class_cruiser
http://www.alabordache.fr/marine/espacemarine/desarme/croiseur/foch-croiseur/presentation.php
https://naval-encyclopedia.com/ww2/France/suffren-class-heavy-cruisers
http://3dhistory.de/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/plans/Cruisers/1929FOCH/FOCH1929C012.gif

GARIER Gérard, Les croiseurs français de 10 000 tonnes, Tome 2 : Foch et Dupleix, Lela presse, 2012, 256p

MOULIN Jean, JORDAN John, French cruisers 1922, 1956, Seaforth publishing, 2012, 232p

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Arghail
  • Like 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, Arghail! Very nice that you made this thread! I have a question about the armour on Foch.:D

Do you see that on frame 56, the 40 mm lower belt is missing? Or rather that the main belt is shown as 54 mm on its entire vertical length? The same happens on frame, but in reverse order. There the 54 mm upper part is missing, and it is shown as 5 mm thick.:016:

 

Are these cross-sectional views wrong in your opinion?

Spoiler

FOCH1929C019.png

 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Magiaconatus said:

Oh, Arghail! Very nice that you made this thread! I have a question about the armour on Foch.:D

Do you see that on frame 56, the 40 mm lower belt is missing? Or rather that the main belt is shown as 54 mm on its entire vertical length? The same happens on frame, but in reverse order. There the 54 mm upper part is missing, and it is shown as 5 mm thick.:016:

 

Are these cross-sectional views wrong in your opinion?

Reveal hidden contents

 


Well, interesting. Do you have a source ? 

That's indeed curious, and I think you're right, these cross sectional views are problematic. I would trust this schematic since it seems to be a legit document from that time, but it seems these very honourable ingénieurs du génie maritime have made some mistakes. It would be logical since the longitudinal view clearly shows no change on that section. 

There is however another possibility. Foch's service indicates that it was "unavailable between august and december 1933" (it entered service in 1931, and had been the flagship of the 1st Division Lègere, a role it kept until the Algérie entered service in 1934), which matches more or less the date indicated on this document (march 1933). It's very possible that some modifications were brought during that time, and that this page was perhaps a projected modification of the armored box ? The very concept of replacing a belt by an "armored box" is a bit foreign to me and I have trouble really conceptualizing the whole thing. 

Thanks for the page, though, I'm gonna add it to the main article.

Edited by Arghail
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Arghail said:


Well, interesting. Do you have a source ? 

That's indeed curious, and I think you're right, these cross sectional views are problematic. I would trust this schematic since it seems to be a legit document from that time, but it seems these very honourable ingénieurs du génie maritime have made some mistakes. It would be logical since the longitudinal view clearly shows no change on that section. 

That said, Foch's service indicates that it was "unavailable between august and december 1933", which matches more or less the date indicated on this document (march 1933). It's very possible that some modifications were brought during that time, and that this page was perhaps a projected modification of the armored box ? The very concept of replacing a belt by an "armored box" is a bit foreign to me and I have trouble really conceptualizing the whole thing. 

Thanks for the page, though, I'm gonna add it to the main article.

There is a whole bunch from here. I think they were saved from the Service Historique's website 10-15 years ago before they removed them. There are many other ships there if you jump back by one folder.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1GqTSfcolv2wTLX-yWJGWzRPQgIMizuRg

 

I checked Jordan's book, and they don't show neither of those frames in the book. I guess for a good reason.:016: :D

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Magiaconatus said:

Are these cross-sectional views wrong in your opinion?

I don't think they're necessarily completely wrong, I think not every value is written down, so the cross sectional views have to be interpreted while also keeping the longitudinal view in mind.

In that respect, 56 (same as 74 and 84) must have 54 on the upper side and 40 on the lower. "5" on 84 almost certainly refers to the deck only, the armour plate being in principle 54mm.

For an actual mistake : fore magazine is marked at 50mm on the side view, but (probably more accurately) 54 on the top and cross-sectional view (138)

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Magiaconatus said:

There is a whole bunch from here. I think they were saved from the Service Historique's website 10-15 years ago before they removed them. There are many other ships there if you jump back by one folder.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1GqTSfcolv2wTLX-yWJGWzRPQgIMizuRg

 

I checked Jordan's book, and they don't show neither of those frames in the book. I guess for a good reason.:016: :D


Well, in any case thanks for all that. Gonna add it to the main article.

Edited by Arghail
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Magiaconatus said:

Oh, Arghail! Very nice that you made this thread! I have a question about the armour on Foch.:D

Do you see that on frame 56, the 40 mm lower belt is missing? Or rather that the main belt is shown as 54 mm on its entire vertical length? The same happens on frame, but in reverse order. There the 54 mm upper part is missing, and it is shown as 5 mm thick.:016:

 

Are these cross-sectional views wrong in your opinion?

Hide contents

 

The perfect view of a caisson

FOCH1929C019.png

Edited by sam_dom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woops I voted all of them at the second question, but I thought it was "all of them in the game" not as premium, damn I was not fully awoken!

 

So +4 to see them all ingame, also their different fates during the war means potential variation in Vichy AA refit Colbert got a radar before Toulon event and Suffren got mid 1945 refit in USA so we really can have some in the tree and some as event / prem

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...