Talk:French battleship Dunkerque

full size battleship

I removed the statement the ships were "Not quite the size of a full battleship". With 36,000 tonnes they definitely were as big as contemporary BBs, like the North Carolina or Lord Nelson class. Markus Becker02 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit. They were 36,000 tonnes full load, which is considerably smaller than the North Carolina or Nelson classes; they were just 26,500 tons standard compared to 35,000 for both Nelson and North Carolina. North Carolina was over 46,000 tons full load. TomTheHand 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Still close to the Nelson class´s 34,000/38,000 tons, perhabs we should mention the guncaliber instead of the ship´s size? Even the pre-WW1 Orions had bigger guns. Or the rather thin armour -four inches less that the Nelsons. Markus Becker02 00:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The changes you've made look good to me. TomTheHand 04:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Dunkerque battleship class is the only one of the battleship classes built after the Naval Treaty of Washington, with a tonnage nearly 10,000 tons under the Treaty of Washington limit of 35,000 tons. There are several reasons:

the French Navy was not wishing to have battleships to fight against the British Nelson class battleships, or the U.S.Navy Colorado class battleships, as nobody could imagine in 1930, a war between France and the United Kingdom or the United States of America.

For the protection of the French Colonies, and particularly Indo-China, French Navy trusted more on ocean-going submarines or cruisers, and proved it in the Battle of Koh Chang (February 1941) against the Thai Navy.

In European waters, the potential enemy was Germany, which was intended to attack the commercial maritime roads, and the Dunkerque class was an answer to the German Deutschland pocket battleship. And it have been difficult to convince the French Parliament of the need of a 26,500 tons battleship to counter a 10,000 tons warship.

The period during which the Dunkerque class was designed, between 1930 and 1932, was this of the preparation of the Second Naval Treaty of London, during which it has been thought that the limitations of naval armements might be enforced, more strictly than after the Treaty of Washington, with a battleship tonnage limit of 25,000 tons, and a main artillery caliber limit of 14 inches, instead 35,000 tons and 16 inches.

When Japan and Italy announced that they had decided not to sign a new Treaty, in 1934, and Mussolini announced the building of two 35,000 tons battleships, it was clear that the Dunkerque class was outclassed, and it became evident that battleships of at least 35,000 tons had do be built.Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

Having read this article one could question how neutral the commentary within is, when it covers the circumstances of the attack upon the franch ships in Algeria by the British Royal Navy. Indeed as stated, the aim of the attack was to sink the ships, but the initial visit upon the ships by the Royal Navy was intended to coerce them to join the allied cause; abandoning their Vichy alliegiance.

There is no mention of the much documented and oft quoted deadline for action handed to the French, then there are documented cases of French officers not accepting the individual british Naval officers sent to negotiate with them.

Indeed there are documented cases of blind xenophobia from French officers towards British officers for the outcomes of the battle for and defeat of France in 1940.

I feel that in the interests of accuracy, this all; in some form; needs mention, one can not deplore the attack on their once allies by the British ships as unfortunate in the extreme; and clearly this is the intent of the original author of this article.

However, the initial imputous on the Britsh approaching the French at anchor was not to destroy them, quite the opposite, this is not delivered by this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xelous (talk • contribs) 14:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The British ultimatum at Mers-el-Kebir was

1) to join the British forces, and to steer to a British base

2) or to scuttle the ships

3) or to steer to West Indies or to the U.S.A. under British control

unless the ships must be sunk, and Admiral Somerville had three battleships and one aircraft carrier to execute this task. The day before, French warships, moored in Portsmouth, had been seized.

It was far from a kind request to follow the British Squadron, and on the evening of July 3, there were one thousand French sailors dead in the wreck of their battleship. Admiral Somerville was knowing what he has been ordered to do and was very reluctant to do it. Admiral Dudley North, Flag Officer at Gibraltar had told what he thought of the Operation Catapult, "Boomerang rather than Catapult". Nobody had any doubt on the end of the operation.

All this can be reminded, and discussed in articles on Mers-el-Kebir, Operation Catapult, and so on. In an article about Dunkerque, Mers-el-Kebir means three or four 381mm shells hitting the battleship, on July 3, and the sinking in shallow waters by torpedo bomber aircrafts, on July 6.

Moreover, about the documented cases of French officers not accepting the individual British Naval officers sent to negotiate with them, it is true that Admiral Gensoul, Flag Officer of the Squadron moored at Mers-el-Kebir, first refused, in the morning of July 3, to discuss with Captain Cedric Holland, sent by Admiral Sommerville, as he was not of his rank. He accepted later, about noon. It is the only case I know.

About the "blind cases of xenophobia from French officers towards British officers for the outcomes of the battle for and defeat of France in 1940", I have not read anything documented on this, but it is true that there were some warnings of the French Admiralty, about the British attitude, at the very moment of signature of the Armistice, on June 24, 1940. But the anglophobia of the French Navy begins with Mers-el-Kebir.Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Please correct

The following line has to be in error.

, one of the torpedoes hit a small patrol ship carrying depth charges aboard Dunkerque.

I would have corrected it but I don't know how to write it so that it would be accurate, but I do know that it can't make sense as stated. I would prefer that the original writer correct it, if not, I will delete the line. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You have not deleted the line, but you did the good edit, changing «aboard» to «alongside».Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

last sentence

What's with the "only"s in the last sentence? "The remains of the ship (not more than some 15,000 tonnes only...) were refloated in 1945 and sold for final demolition in 1958 only." Can they just be removed or is there some intended meaning there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.30.97.36 (talk • contribs)

Strasbourg was stricken on 1955, March 22nd, and sold for scrap one month and half later, on May 5th of the same year. But stricken on 1955, September 15th, Dunkerque was sold only on 1958, September 9th, because no buyer was found for her wreck earlier.Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Overhaul

For what it's worth, I've massively overhauled the article and it should be ready for WP:GA, which I've nominated it for. It will probably need more work to get it up to standard for A-class or WP:FAC. I probably won't have much time to do further work (apart from what needs to be done to pass the GA review) for the time being. Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:French battleship Dunkerque/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 23:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

This is a really good article, and I found it to be an interesting read - great work. My comments are:

• Please provide a translation for "1ère Division de Ligne" (though this is pretty obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of both naval terminology and French)
• "The French Navy spent the decade following the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty attempting to produce a satisfactory design" - surely it was the French Navy's ship designers who did this, and not the whole navy
• "Initially, the French sought a reply to the Italian Trento-class cruisers of 1925, but all proposals were rejected. A 17,500-ton cruiser was inadequate against the old Italian battleships" - were the ships needed to counter cruisers or old battleships? This wording is a bit unclear.
  • I didn't write this, I believe User:Paul-Pierre Valli did - I'll ask him for clarification. I'm assuming the idea is that 17,500t ship could handle the Trentos, but couldn't take on the older dreadnoughts.
    • The 17,000t battleship would have been able to counter the 10,000tW cruisers, as HMS Invincible similarly did with German armoured cruisers, in the Battle of Falklands Islands, but would not have been able to counter 305 mm gun armed battleships, as the same HMS Invincible in the battle of Jutland. So, it was considered hazardous to allocate an important part of the global battleship displacement (70,000t from the 175,000t allocated by the Washington treaty) to ships only able to «kill cruisers». I completely agree with User:Parsecboy for a wording as : « A 17,500t ship could handle the new Washington heavy cruisers, but couldn't take on the older dreadnoughts.»Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Parliamentary approval was given" - the common term is that parliamentary approval is "granted"
• "and eight large destroyers, and was based in Brest" - all the commas and the repeated "and"s here make this sentence rather breathless. It would probably be better to split the bit about where the ships were based into a separate sentence
• I think that you need some material noting that the Sudetenland Crisis didn't lead to war and tensions dropped for a while; the transition between the French fleet being on a war footing to making routine cruises to attend various ceremonies is rather sudden.
  • In the Robert Dumas's book (Dumas, Robert (2001) (in French). Les cuirassés Dunkerque et Strasbourg. Paris: Marine Éditions. ISBN 978-2-909675-75-6. Dunkerque), (p. 67)the sortie of the French Atlantic Fleet, from 14 to 16 April, to cover the Jeanne d'Arc return, is linked to the Sudetenland crisis which is obviously wrong, as the Munich Agreement occured late September 1938. There is possibly a confusion with the occupation of Checoslovakia, beyond the Sudetenland, namely the creation of Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, in mid-March 1939.Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• The article uses a combination of day-month and month-day dates - please standadise on one option
• "On 11 December, Dunkerque and the cruiser Gloire escorted a shipment of part of the Banque de France's gold reserve to Canada." - do we know what ship carried the gold? It seems odd that it wasn't embarked on the warships (which I think was the British practice at this time).
  • The line was "...she and the cruiser Gloire left Brest carrying gold to Canada..." - I had assumed this meant escorting a convoy, but you're probably right.
    • In my library, I did not find a reference about the Gloire shipping gold in December 1939. From a French languaged forum [[1]], about the La Galissonnière class cruisers, it is clear that the gold was shipped by the Dunkerque, and the Gloire cruiser was escorting her. However in the Robert Dumas book cited (p.68), it is indicated that gold was shipped on both ships.Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Repair work lasted for the entirety of 1941, and on 25 January 1941 another fire broke out. The temporary repairs were completed by 19 February" - was this 19 February 1942?
  • That was a typo, should have been 25 January 1942.
• "The Italians took control of the wreck, but they found her a total loss, and so they began to dismantle Dunkerque" - this sentence is rather fragmented: I'd suggest tweaking it to remove the repeated 'they'
• The copyright status of File:Croiseur de bataille Strasbourg 03-07-1940.jpg seems unclear - it appears that the photo was taken from a website, with someone other than its creator claiming ownership. Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing the article, Nick. I'll remove the image until it can be clarified. Everything else should be addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Great work - As it's safe to assume that you'll follow up on my third point above, I'll pass the article. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
      • And it only took me two and a half months to get around to it ;) Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Assessment against the GA criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Possible issue with one image noted above Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Battlecruiser, not Battleship

A ship that is armed like a battleship but armoured only against cruisers, and is intended for use against commerce raiders, is clearly a battlecruiser and not a battleship. A genuine battleship would have an armour belt that is about as thick as the calibre of its own guns; Dunkerque's armour belt was only 225mm, while its guns were 330mm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.243.25 (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

What you're describing is called original research and is not permitted on Wikipedia. A number of sources call these ships battleships, and that's what we use. If you want to present a case that they are more frequently called battlecruisers in secondary sources, you are free to do that. Parsecboy (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Were the Dunkerque-class ships battleships or battlecruisers ? This was often discussed, on the French Wikipedia, for instance.

In Breyer, Siegfried (1973). Battleships and Battle Cruisers 1905–1970. London: Macdonald and Jane's. ISBN 978-0-356-04191-9, the page about Dunkerque-class and Gneisenau-class warships (p.79), is referred as «The "Little" Battleships». Henri Le Masson, who is one of the most well known French experts in warships, from W.W.II to the 1970s, wrote in his 1969 book «The French Navy» (Volume I. Navies of the Second World War. London: Macdonald. ISBN 0-356-02384-2. p. 17) : «In the French navy lists, the Dunkerque and her consort, the Strasbourg were always referred to as bâtiments de ligne(ships of the line, otherwise battleships), never as croiseurs de combat (battlecruisers). (...) Despite their official rating on the Navy list, the Dunkerque and the Strasbourg which had been designed in response to the first German armoured vessels, those of the "Deutschland" class, were more a battlecruiser type than real battlesships.»

Actually, the Dunkerque class was of a very ambiguous type, with their 9-inch (D)/11-inch (S) thick armored belt, and their 13-inch main artillery caliber, as the Gneisenau class, with the same speed, and a little heavier displacement, had a 12-13 inches thick armoured belt, but 11-inch main artillery caliber, with 336 kg APC shells, againt 570 kg for the Dunkerque-class's ones.Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Attack on Mers-el-Kebir

The article indicated that the British attacked because they "misinterpret[ed] the terms of the armistice as providing the Germans access" to the fleet. This is incorrect. The British were aware of the terms of the armistice but did not believe that it provided sufficient assurance: they took the view that the Germans could break it at any moment and seize the fleet. See, e.g., https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1940/jun/25/war-situation for Churchill's contemporaneous comment.

Amended to eliminate the offending sentence. It's sufficient to say that the British were concerned that the ships might fall into German hands. 202.74.221.14 (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The British were wrong, Jordan & Dumas are clear on that point. That you don't like it is not sufficient justification to remove sourced content, particularly if all you have to point to are contemporaneous statements from politicians seeking to justify their own actions (i.e., little better than worthless from the perspective of a historian). Parsecboy (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)