Gascogne

Line drawing of "Battleship B3 ter", the plans for what would have been Gascogne.

History

Design

The most conspicuous change with Gascogne would have been the return to a main artillery arrangement with a quadruple 380 mm (15 in) gun turret aft. This rearrangement also would shift superstructures forward so that these were now mounted almost exactly midships and no longer at a considerable distance aft of the midship position.

Gascogne's secondary artillery would have been three triple turrets of 152 mm (6.0 in) caliber, all on one axial line, two in a superfiring position forward and one between the funnel and the aft 380 mm (15 in) turret, which freed up the sides of the ship for eight anti-aircraft dual mountings of 100 mm (3.9 in) caliber. As the 152 mm (6.0 in) guns' magazines would have been near the main artillery turrets' magazines, which would increase risks, the 152 mm (6.0 in) turrets' armor had to be improved. In July 1938 it was proposed to increase the turret armor thickness to 190 mm (7.5 in) on the faces (instead of 130 mm (5.1 in)), 120 mm (4.7 in) on the roofs and 100 mm (3.9 in) on the sides (instead of 70 mm (2.8 in)); the barbettes would have remained at 100 mm (3.9 in). In February 1939, a rebalancing was proposed with a thickness of 150 mm (5.9 in) for the barbette, 155 mm (6.1 in) for the turret faces, and from 135 mm (5.3 in) to 85 mm (3.3 in) for the turret sides. A thinner upper armored deck had been considered, reducing its thickness to around 145 mm (5.7 in), instead of around 160 mm (6.3 in), but there is no proof that such a decision was actually taken, beyond a Service Technique des Constructions Navales (STCN) recommendation dated 5 March 1938.

In the December 1938 designs, aircraft installations were intended to be fitted at the ship's center, with trainable catapults between the fore tower and the funnel, with a hangar at the aft tower's base. Problems with positioning the 100 mm (3.9 in) AA battery too near the main and secondary batteries resulted, in February 1939, in re-positioning the aircraft installations at the ship's stern. A single axial catapult would have had its pedestal countersunk in the quarterdeck, with an internal hangar in a recess under the first deck and a lift to hoist the seaplanes to the first deck level to avoid the blast effects of the rear 380 mm (15 in) turret firing, which also would have required raising the aft 381 mm (15.0 in) turret up one deck, on the Vittorio Veneto-class battleships. The hull seaplanes would have been of a new twin-motored type, the Farman/NCAC NC 420, with an increased endurance (1,350 km at 240 km/h, versus 1,125 km at 150 km/h for the Loire 130). Its prototype was almost complete in June 1940 but never flew. Two seaplanes would have been stowed in the hangar in line, and a third one would have been parked on rails on the quarterdeck, to the aviation hangar's starboard.

Thus, the eight 100 mm (3.9 in) CAD Model 1937 turrets would have been positioned in four groups of two, amidships, in the four corners of the superstructure. Each group of two turrets would have had a fire control system, with a 5-meter (16 ft) OR; for the forward groups this would be on each side of the fore tower, and for the aft turret groups it would be atop the aft tower. Thus, the backup system for the 152 mm (6.0 in) battery would have been eliminated, and the secondary battery's fire control direction insured by the upper system in the fore tower for anti-ship gunnery and by the 100 mm (3.9 in) battery's systems for anti-aircraft gunnery.

The six 37 mm (1.5 in) AA Model 1935 guns would have been installed with four mountings abeam the forward turret (two on the forecastle and two a little abaft, one deck higher), with their fire control systems amidships between the fore and the aft tower, and the two would have been positioned abeam the aft superstructure with their fire control systems a little forward and one deck higher. The 37 mm (1.5 in) zénithaux quadruple mountings were repositioned amidships between the fore and aft towers, because on the quarterdeck – as on Clemenceau – they would have been excessively exposed to the blast from the aft main turret.

Service

Original plans called for Gascogne to be laid down in August 1939. Material shortages postponed her scheduled start-of-construction until May 1940. The German invasion of France on 10 May 1940 halted all plans and progress on her construction; she was never completed.

Historical Inaccuracies

• Gascogne is depicted in a hypothetical 1941 configuration. However, the Navy Blue disruptive camouflage suggests that Gascogne is in 1943 condition. She should be fitted with quad 40 mm Bofors guns and 20 mm Oerlikon cannons, which became standard on French ships that were refitted in the United States after they sided with the Allies. Gascogne's sister ship Richelieu was not painted in disruptive camouflage until 1943 when she was refitted in New York.
• Actual light AA battery consisted of six 37 mm/50 1933 guns and five quadruple 13.2 mm Hotchkiss machine guns.
• The 37 mm/70 ACAD Mle 1936 gun was not provided in time for the Richelieu-class battleships. As such it is unlikely it would have been completed in time for Gascogne either had she been built. Furthermore, the weapon had numerous development problems, resulting in delays which led to its cancellation in 1940. Only one prototype existed.
• Few, if any of the 25 mm Hotchkiss guns entered service with the French Navy before the 1940 armistice.

• 

  A cross-sectional drawing of a quadruple 380mm turret, such as those found on Richelieu and Gascogne.

• 

  Artist's rendering of Gascogne.

• 

  Deck plans of Gascogne.

• 

  Details of Gascogne’s aviation arrangements.

• 

  A detailed look at Gascogne’s intended armor scheme.