Talk:Redoutable-class submarine (1928)

Recent edits

I've done a bit of a re-write, according to the sources I've given. I'm not sure what the original source for this page is. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(Request)

Would it be possible to add the Surcouf to the "French naval ship classes of World War II" list at the bottom of this page? There is a top quality wikipedia page on the Surcouf - but I had great difficulty finding it ( I had forgotton how Surcouf was spelt! ). Other single ship classes are listed.

I expect this applies all the pages about French WW2 warship class pages. Holland jon (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

(NB: It looks like someone's done this already. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC))

Change to layout

The layout of the ships in this class was boldly changed yesterday; I’ve reverted this as the result is contentious.
The substance of the change is to add a table listing builders, launch dates, etc (which is fine ) but it also deleted the previous arrangement in three sub-classes, which is not.
The three sub-class division is laid out in Conway, which is a reliable ( maybe even definitive) English language source and is supported by Bagnasco. The new arrangement (putting Redoutable & Vengeur in one group and all others in a second) may be used by Huan but that doesn’t give grounds to delete what is already there; the correct approach when there a conflict of sources is to have both (“source 'a' says this, though source 'b' says...”) and contrast the two.
Bagnasco reports that the vessels in this class varied in detail according to which yard built them, but that the main difference (which is reflected in the three sub-classes) was a progressive increase in motive power and therefore surface speed. The first group (R&V onwards) had 6000hp for a speed of 17kn; the 1928/29 group (6 boats starting with L'Espoir) had 7,200hp (19kn) and the 1930 group ( another 6 starting with Agosta) had 8600 hp (20kn). As far as the Huan division goes (R&V in one group, all the rest in another) he says only that they were the first two to be built, and the only two built at Cherbourg.
I suggest to resolve this we record this information in the introduction, but that (as that is what readers here are most likely to find in English language sources) we stick to the three sub-class layout. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand the reasons why you reverted my modifications. Please allow me to justify myself. Consider my modifications as a beginning of translation of the French article fr:Classe 1500 tonnes.

I don't pretend to say Conway is not reliable. But I think Claude Huan and Claude Picard, French historians specialists of the French submarines, are more reliable on that precise subject. I wrote the FA French article. I never read in their books and anywhere else but here a distinction in three subclasses. Instead, I read the distinction Redoutable/Pascal. They are categorized as two different projects (M5 and M6) by French Navy. The main difference is the existence of a Diesel generator for charging the batteries on Redoutable and Vengeur while Pascal and the others used an alternator installed on the prop shafts.

Bagnasco is right when he stated that the submarines were more and more powerful but the increase given is wrong. I can't precisely remember right now the scale of progression but, for example, Redoutable and Vengeur had only 4000 hp and so they are more than 3 different types of hp. I won't be able to give you the details until wednesday. It is also interesting to note that the Diesel engines were mainly built by Sulzer but 9 submarines had their engines built by Schneider. So the difference between engine power cannot be used to define subclasses. Or then, we have to consider that there are more than 3 subclasses. And in any case, we know it's wrong.

Saying that Redoutable and Vengeur were the only one built in Cherbourg is another mistake : 9 ships were built there, as Cherbourg is the more important naval yard for French submarines.

Once again, Huan, Picard and others' works are directly based on the French naval archives so I believe they are reliable when they say there are only two subclasses : Redoutable on one hand and Pascal on the other.

I said I understood the revert but I am a bit surprised of a total and general revert of my modifications. The table given, whatever could be the different subclasses, is correct, so is the arrangement plan or other details I gave. Martin // discuter 07:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for replying.

To take the last point first, I reverted the whole edit because I was following WP:BRD and returning the page to the status quo ante. Also, as the change was made in one 4kb edit; I was unable to revert just the point at issue, but had to do it all.

As I said I’ve no objection to having the individual ship details added, or having that detail in table form; my objection was the change from the three-subclass to a two-subclass layout, and the deleting of English language sources in favour of French ones.

Nor do I wish to denigrate Huan and Picard, if they are (as you say) French historians expert in this area. OTOH they are French sources, so not readily accessible in the English speaking world. And we shouldn’t be basing an entire article here on them. For that reason I don’t think substituting this text for a translation of the Fr:WP article page is a good idea either; an article on the Eng:WP should follow English language sources, otherwise it will be unverifiable; we have an interwiki link to the Fr WP article here, which should be enough.

But "the difference between engine power cannot be used to define subclasses"? Well, that is exactly what Conway does use, in common with other English language sources.

And "we have to consider that there are more than 3 subclasses": Actually, No we don’t; isn’t up to us to decide at all, it's up to us to follow what reliable sources say.

Also "in any case, we know it's wrong"? Again, No we don’t; we have sources that say different things, and what we are required to do in that case is to "represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources"

So (to repeat) what I am suggesting is that the article should follow Conway as its main source (for the reasons stated) with any variations from that added or footnoted as necessary. Those would include the two-subclass arrangement in Huan, and the lower power output for R&V (neither Conway or Bagnasco record that, BTW, so the source would be Huan again, I presume) Also, (you were right) Conway does list about 9 boats built at Cherbourg, though Bagnaso has just 2, with the others built by Dubigeon; in that case the footnote would be the Bagnasco reference. Conway has the builders details, launch dates and fate, so we can put those in; again, any discrepancies should be footnoted. And I'm happy to carry that out if you are agreeable. Xyl 54 (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I understand, your main objection about my modifications is that the sources are in French. I am well aware of the supremacy of English sources over others here, en:wp, provided that the English sources are the same quality as the others. And as we can see, the sources I give are a lot more precise than Conway or Bagnasco. The verifiability concept is like a pyramid: from the more general to the more specific. So on the one hand we have English sources which consist in a 3 or 4 pages in 2 books of 250 and 450 pages written more than 30 years ago and, on the other, at least 3 books dedicated to those submarines: Claude Huan's Les sous-marins français 1918-1945, 240 pages ISBN 978-2915379075 = the French submarines between 1918 and 1945 (1500 tons submarines were the largest class and the largest submarines of the French Navy at that time, except the one-design Surcouf), Claude Picard's Les sous-marins de 1500 tonnes, 120 pages (ISBN 2-915379-55-6) and Axel Abouker's Archimède, 100 pages, (ISBN 978-2357430587) (Archimède is one of those submarines). So it gives at least 450 pages all about those submarines, all written in the past few years. All those works are based on the consultation of the naval archives in Brest, Cherbourg, Vincennes or Châtellerault.

All those three French are specialized on the French Navy and its submarines. Claude Huan is a former naval officer. He is member of the Académie de Marine and wrote 16 books, more than 300 articles. Claude Picard is a former naval engineer and journalist. Axel Abouker is a young doctor in history, it's its first publication.

If we follow Conway as main source, this article is promised to remain a stub. So I think it's a real shame to throw away an opportunity to improve this article by translating the FA French article just because the sources are in French. I would agree with you if French was an obscure language with just a few speakers but that's not the case. In any case, if a source is a book, this source is not readily verifiable to anyone, wether the source is in English or in French unless you have this book in your hands. And a French source, on a French subject, is not less reliable or valuable than an English one just because it's French.

I agree to restore the arrangement plan and the table as before. Although I think the distinction in three subclasses is an artificial division, I understand it may be mentioned, provided that the official distinction in 2 is mentioned as well (NPOV). Example of introduction:

"The Redoutable class submarines or 1500 tons submarines were ocean-going submarines of the French Navy during the Second World War. They were officially called "Long patrol submarines" (Fr:Sous-marins de grande patrouille), or "First class submarines" (fr:Sous-marins de première classe)<ref>Conway p274</ref><ref>First class' were oceanic submarines; second's were coastal submarines; and third's were mine layers.</ref>. The were divided in two subclasses by the French Navy ''Redoutable'' (M5) and ''Pascal'' (M6),<ref>Huan, p. 26</ref> but they were regarded as being in three sub-classes for historians as Bagnaso.<ref>Bagnasco p38</ref>.

The Redoubtable class were generally regarded as successful, being reliable and seaworthy, with a good range and armament.<ref>Picard, p. 21</ref> A total of 31 were built, the largest class of submarines built by the French Navy, and comprising 40 % of its total submarine force.<ref>Huan, p. 50</ref>."

Martin // discuter 12:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me understand you: are you saying you are content to let the article follow the format of the English sources, provided the conclusions of the French sources are referred to? That’s fine by me, though the sentence you proposed is (I think) the wrong way round. It might be better even to leave it out of the introduction and have a paragraph on it further down.

But it’s a bit of a misrepresentation to say I’m objecting to your sources simply because they are French! I am happy to accept H & P are reliable (I’ve never clapped eyes on them , but I’ll take your word for it) though I am less happy to accept that they are more reliable than C&B or any English language source. As to how verifiable a source is, it’s a matter of degree; but if I don’t have a book to hand I can probably find it through the local library. If the source is French the nearest library is likely to be in Calais.

As for the idea of substituting the text here for a translation of the French article, it sounds plausible enough, but let me ask you; Would it be acceptable on the Fr:WP to change an article for a translation from the Eng:WP if the subject was British (or American)? I doubt it would go down well...

A practical issue is that about half the content of the Fr article consists of a History section with a detailed account of all 31 vessels. I don’t know about ship class articles over there, but such articles here don’t do that; they generally focus on design and construction, and have an outline (at most) of the history. So that content would be out of place here; it would make more sense in an article on “the French Navy in WWII” or even the “French submarine service in WWII”. But the development and construction detail would be fine, if it can be corroborated. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

"are you saying you are content to let the article follow the format of the English sources, provided the conclusions of the French sources are referred to?" Of course, but I believe you'll get, in the end, more informations sourced by French sources than English ones.

"Would it be acceptable on the Fr:WP to change an article for a translation from the Eng:WP if the subject was British (or American)? I doubt it would go down well..." It would be and it is, provided that the translated article is better than the original one. Different WP are different projects, different encyclopedias but translations can be done in order to improve articles on the different WP, in order to spread knowledge.

The French article contains mainly a section about the story of this class and no others, but it can be reduced. More details information are given in the detailed articles. Martin // discuter 08:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, on that basis I've re-jigged the article. I've included information on development and characteristics to mirror what's in the Fr WP article; and I've added a summary of the service history, which should be suitable for here. And I've added an explanation of the different sub-class arrangements. I've stuck with English sources where possible, but I've added some of the French ones where necessary; do you have page numbers for them?

Also, if you are interested in doing a general article here on the French Navy in WWII, or just the Fr submarine service in WWII, I would say it'd be a welcome addition. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

range

What's up with this nonsense of the wrong automatic conversions? "10,000 nautical miles (20,000 km) at 10 knots (20 km/h)" 10,000 nautical miles are 18,520 km and 18 kts are 18,52 km/h ! 03:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastdingo (talk • contribs)

I think whoever put in the unit conversions either doesn't understand how the template works or doesn't understand how precision works. I just took out the specifiers and so we'll get the defaults, which is better than what we had. While I was at it I took out the unhelpful conversions to statute miles. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

ship names

This page was edited recently, to remove the definite article from the names of six of the vessels here. I have reverted this, as there was no justification for it. All the sources on the page list these two vessels as having names with the definite article. If anyone has a source that says differently, I suggest they bring it here, as it may warrant a footnote informing of the difference; but the weight of evidence is for the page to stay as it was originally written. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm you were right to do so. For those vessels, the article is a part of the name. It was an issue when I wrote the French featured article because, for instances, there were two submarines called Redoutable. One is called Redoutable and the other one Le Redoutable. And we say Le Redoutable for both of them, as we say Le Prométhée or L'Archimède, even if the article is not a part of the name. So for those six, Le Glorieux (The Glorious), Le Centaure (The Centaur), Le Héros (The Hero), Le Conquérant (The Conqueror), Le Tonnant (The Thunderous), the article Le is a part of the name. Martin // discuter 10:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin' (talk • contribs)

L'Argo's date look questionable

While it seems possible that a ship could be commissioned before it's launched, that seems notable and therefore should be mentioned elsewhere in the article. Sebsmith0 (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

This seems to have been an error when the table was drawn up. The French article on the submarine has launched on 11 April 1929 and commissioned on 12 February 1933. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Poncelet

I edited the fate of submarine Poncelet . She was Damaged by the HMS Milford and scutled by her captain who sacrified his life for .

The Wikipedia page of Poncelet agree whive me . "Her commanding officer at the time of her loss,Capitaine de corvette (Corvette Captain) Bertrand de Saussine du Pont de Gault, is regarded as a national naval hero in France for sacrificing his life to scuttle her and ensure that she did not fall into enemy hands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Poncelet_(Q141)"

Berthrand de Saussine Biography is available on Wikipedia . "Le 7 novembre 1940, le Poncelet est attaqué par le sloop britannique HMS Milford devant Libreville. Après six heures au jeu du chat et de la souris, le Poncelet est en position de tir. Il lance une première torpille qui passe sous la coque du Milford. La seconde torpille reste bloquée dans le tube dont la porte ne s'est pas assez ouverte, mais suffisamment pour créer une voie d'eau. La torpille, quant à elle, dégage une épaisse fumée toxique. Le poids de l'eau embarqué et les fumées toxiques font que le sous-marin doit cesser le combat. Le Poncelet remonte en surface et le commandant dirige l'évacuation de l'ensemble de son équipage mais reste à bord. Bertrand de Saussine coule volontairement avec son bâtiment dans la plus pure tradition de la « Royale ». "

You can check it https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Henri_Bertrand_de_Saussine_du_Pont_de_Gault

Translated On November 7, 1940, the Poncelet was attacked by the British sloop HMS Milford off Libreville. After six hours of cat-and-mouse, the Poncelet was in firing position. It launched a first torpedo which passed under the hull of the Milford. The second torpedo remains stuck in the tube, the door of which has not opened far enough, but far enough to create a leak. The torpedo, meanwhile, emits thick toxic smoke. The weight of the water embarked and the toxic fumes meant that the submarine had to stop fighting. The Poncelet came to the surface and the captain directed the evacuation of all of his crew but remained on board. Bertrand de Saussine sank with his ship in the more the pure tradition of the “Royale”. Crazy defender 2 (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Poncelet wasn't sank !

According to Wikipedia ( herself ) , Poncelet was scuttled by her captain during the battle of Gabon .

You can check it . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gabon

According to the French Wikipedia ( wikipedia in French ) , the Poncelet was scuttled by her captain !

I recomand to edit in this way , the Poncelet wasn't sank ! It was Scuttled ! Crazy defender 2 (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)