The 800 m/s( 1943) shell is the one made by crucible steel with US propelant charges. Im talking about the one with 785m/s ( 1936 ) .
The richelieu left france in a rush because of the germans and the boat wasnt 100% completed ( some missing secondaries AA and ammo) .
when she fire for her first battle at dakar , one of the gun blew up because the design of the breach was not well designed to wistand the power of the SD21 propelant charges ( very spicy ) .
So after the incident by precaution the commander ordered to load the SD 19 charges left by the dunkerque previously at the base and to fire with it .
The SD 19 being way less spicy gave the round way slower velocity than with the SD21 ( 785m/s instead of 830 m/s !! ) .
It kinda make sens in a certain way since it’s the refit version but it’s pretty hypocrites knowing that the soyouz is getting the very very veryyy optimal theoretical numbers .
even weirder gaijin seems to have direct sources for the pen value since they didnt seem to have respected the jacob de marre formula … ( update im stupid it’s 1000 m in game so it realistic so now we have to show them that we want the SD21 stats for historical and gameplay purposes)


idealy the french shell + SD21 charges 795 mm of pen ( at 0m 0° ofc )
I was wondering why the French AP had a slower velocity than the American Crucible…
Havn’t played that in about half a year. Still absolutely atrocious. As soon as the enemies fire at you, you know this think will explode any second. And if not, it usually sinks after 1-2 salvos anyway…
when angled it’s pretty good tho
I always angled 45 degree. I even think now it’s better to not angle at all and just show the side. The armor just sucks because it’s nothing more than a box. The angle doesn’t even matter. All shots go right into the magazine. Also why can’t the secondaries of all french ships not be calibrated to the main gun designator? The quite powerful secondaries of the Dunkerque hit 500 meters further and about 100 meters after the target. Where is the point in fireing anything with one button, if the secondaries take a trip to the next map?
If Gaijin was willing to model the “half turret” design solely in this respect, sure. I think it would be very cool for each half turret to be supplied by a separate ammo room on each level, as they did historically, in order to represent the redundancy of this design where if an incident happened in one shell room, it wouldn’t affect the other, thus ensuring the other “half turret” to continue operation.
But so far, all the answers we were given regarding this “split turret” idea was that it would be very unlikely for the developers to model such a system just for one ship. So if Gaijin isn’t willing to model the split turrets having their own separate ammunition supply, what are we supposed to ask for, one single shell room module that removes the ammo for the entire turret when the upper level gets penned, or split shell rooms that supply the entire turret? Admittedly, both options are equally unhistorical, just one has more benefits than the other.
Three ships…
Back when it was discussed, Dunkerque was the only one around. Perhaps they’ll be more willing to reconsider with three.
I have my doubts. Probably would be too much hassle implementing that into the engine. We probably see a 3 axis stabilised Turms III before that…
Exactly. We can’t have a historical ammunition layout without the implementation of historical “half turrets” where each one has its dedicated shell room for supply.
Although, I would argue that current subdivision of ammunition is one step closer to this. We can’t have “half turrets” without subdivided ammo rooms. The solution to implement is to have the upper ammo room linked to the right pair of guns and the lower ammo room linked to the left. Like you, I have my doubts on whether Gaijin will implement this at all, even for three ships.
Done !
I think it’s indeed better to not mix the discussion regarding the different ships, especially since they are so similar but so different at the same time, it could be confusing ^^’
Thank you my good sir . Now i can complain for hour about the nerf velocity of the richelieu shell
How deep does she sit in games as I got told that ships can sit higher in the water than in live games
This is a photo of Strasbourg right after its scuttling in Toulon in 1942. It’s not just low on water : It’s resting at the bottom of the port because it was sabotaged.
Press and hold J for 3 sec and you will have this waterline
How can someone believe that’s normal? Such a ship would be never seaworthy…
Am I the only one feeling Dunkerque and Strasbourg sink too fast when got a hole in this update?
No, I’ve been playing them recently and the ships do take on water too readily after even somewhat minor damage. I’ve had my ship start flooding heavily after a few compartments were turned red or yellow (when yellow it did take some time to become a problem but still). Very annoying is also how shell room explosions with reduced ammo are basically an instant lethal flood for these two ships but not the same for many others. Can at least point to three occasions where my shell room was detonated (half ammo load to keep it all at waterline) and it lead to a lethal flood while the same on even some heavy cruisers and battlecruisers wasn’t a death sentence to them until a friendly finished them off.
For me it wasn’t so in last games I played couple days ago, but also its very important to go with low speed, when you are gaining water, even more perfect just to stop, then you will have time to pump water. If you are going 28knots with holes you will sink very quickly