MN Le Fantasque - Guide 291

[@Drachinifel]

Pinned post for Q&A :)

[@Aelxi]

Do you think IJN should've kept the Tosa class and instead make Fuso or Ise classes for Carrier conversions?

[@galbert117]

At full, damn the engines, speed, what ship from WW2 would win a race in both calm &/or stormy seas?

[@brendonbewersdorf986]

If the Germans had managed to navalize the 150mm flak 50 would it have made an effective secondary/heavy AA weapon? I know there is alot of criticism of the German mixed secondary layout and figured this could be an solution

[@johnbuchman4854]

Drach, I am disappointed you didn't discuss gunnery accuracy at different speeds of this class. Also, ROF.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

@@brendonbewersdorf986 not when you have the proven 88 mm.

[@fabulousdolphin7929]

My grandfather served on Le Triomphant and told me that the power plant (on which he worked) was insanely powerful and the ship was so fast the sailors had the impression of flying over water when they hit top speed.

[@vikkimcdonough6153]

Seems about right for a ship that goes faster than the takeoff speeds of some light aircraft!

[@BleedingUranium]

@@vikkimcdonough6153 For a comparison a lot of people around here will know, the Swordfish has about the same stall speed as their top speed. Meaning you could, theoretically, have them match speed and then land the Swordfish "straight down" onto the destroyer. And that's without a headwind.

[@米空軍パイロット]

@@BleedingUranium If turbulence weren't a thing, it would have been fascinating to see a world where fixed wing planes essentially VTOL'd on and off the decks of warships

[@khaelamensha3624]

@@BleedingUranium The Fieseler Storch under some conditions was able to take off and land on its wingspan (47 feet)

[@silvermane1741]

I have the Le Terrible in WoW Blitz, and with the engine booster skill, it's top speed is 49.7 nauts, so the Le Fantasque class had the ability to be exceptionally fast even by today's standards. 😀

[@Big_E_Soul_Fragment]

Le Fantasque captains: *THE POWEEEEEEER, THE SPEEEEEEEEEEED*

[@slims.8096]

The other captains : CLARKSOOOOONNNN!

[@Aelxi]

It's Speedin' time

[@Benepene]

@@slims.8096 my genious is immeasurable

[@armanhadi777]

😄😄

[@andrewgraziani4331]

Haven't watched episode yet so maybe Drachinifel has covered this, but I can't pass a chance to show off. Fun USA, Great Britain and Japan were the only signatories of the 1930 London Naval Treaty held to the destroyer size limit of 1500 tonnes with 16% of total tonnage designated as flotilla leaders and allowed to mass 1850 tonnes .

[@maxkennedy8075]

Anyone working on the weather decks when this bad boy hits flank speed would look like Jeremy Clarkson testing the Aerial Atom

[@ericdickison7995]

While yelling “POWEEEEEEEER”!!!

[@KillBones]

POWAAAAAAAH

[@historytank5673]

@@ericdickison7995 THE SPEEEEEED!!!!

[@phaasch]

Like a boxer dog with its head out of the car window, slobber flying everywhere.

[@colbeausabre8842]

No Tim Allen on Home Improvement - "MORE POWER!!" kzbin.info/www/bejne/oXOxgXSAgc1-kJY

[@elnareen]

Malign is actually a bit of a false-friend translation: "Le Malin" in modern french is closer in sense to "The Trickster", and is more or less synonymous with "crafty" when applied to someone. It can still have negative connotations, but think of Loki, if you want to have a good idea of the intended meaning when naming the ship.

[@BHuang92]

Makes sense given the service record........

[@lllordllloyd]

"The Capricious"; "The Trickster". Sounds like how I view my unreliable French car.

[@CanalTremocos]

@@lllordllloyd "Des voitures a vivre", if you plan to have a short and miserable life :p

[@paranoidrodent]

Trickster and Crafty are a good translations. Sly also works since it carries a nuance of questionable intent that cunning (rusé) does not.

[@yc2673]

In French, le Malin means trickster, but also devil in a religious acception.

[@lafeelabriel]

Should also be noted that, along with being the fastest, these also happen to be some of thebest looking destroyers ever built, at least in my opinion.

[@michaelkovacic2608]

Absolutely, along with the Narviks and the Tribals.

[@patchouliknowledge4455]

Imo if they had used twin barreled version of their main armament, they would've looked even more amazing

[@lafeelabriel]

@@patchouliknowledge4455 I disagree. Doing just that did not help the Mogador's looks one bit.

[@patchouliknowledge4455]

@@lafeelabriel :0 Well, to each their own. I personally love the kleber/Marceau

[@lafeelabriel]

@@patchouliknowledge4455 Love to play them, not the biggest fan aestetically. And based on that I'm guessing you're a fellow WoWS player. ;)

[@bigblue6917]

With speed like that you half expect a photograph of the ships captain water-skiing behind her. It would be interesting to do a counterfactual special were France and Italy fight each other in the Mediterranean unsupported by any allies set in the mid to late 1930s.

[@andrewfanner2245]

That would be very interesting. Perhaps let all construction halted on entry to war, or the French surrender, be completed. I think it may come ddown to who can interdict the other's fuel supply system best.

[@bigblue6917]

@@andrewfanner2245 Some interesting ideas. I was thinking more of a war just between the French and Italians rather than include others. That way I think it would exclude Germany. You could possibly have the war starting in 1936 while German is still fighting in Spain and not in a position to intervene on land. Isn't war complicated. I just wanted to see how the two respective navies would fair. And now we have to change the whole of history.

[@ledichang9708]

If France stood up to Italy during the Abyssinia Crisis while Britain backed down, leading to fighting between France and Italy over their respective North African empires.

[@bigblue6917]

@@ledichang9708 Interesting idea.

[@glynwelshkarelian3489]

@@ledichang9708 In that case Italy would, likely, be beaten; possibly in weeks. Even if the Italian Army in Libya had not been reduced to supply men and materials to the Ethiopian invasion; it would not have been a match for the French Army on it's boarder; if the French went for a coup de grâce. If that had happen all the facist bluffs would have been called.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

Doctrinally, the French expected to operate these "contretorpeliers" in groups of three, which they expected would overwhelm any similar number of Italian "Navigatori" class destroyers and, more importantly, any single Italian light cruiser. "Le Fantasque" had an impact on US Navy destroyer development, the fleet commenting on its combination of firepower and speed, while BuShips noted the displacement necessary to carry that firepower, and the lack of endurance. The French adopted machinery with boilers of similar performance to that adopted by the US Navy in the mid-1930s. They suffered readiness issues because they didn't design in the space needed for maintenance aboard ship, but this was a deliberate choice because the French expected to conduct most of their maintenance at bases, while the USN had to be prepared to sustain its ships over long distances and extended periods away from base support. It is a comment on the growth of destroyer size, that the last class of French "contre-torpeliers" were approaching light cruiser size.

[@adrien5834]

*contre-torpilleurs

[@yc2673]

French naval doctrine was heavily influenced by its past conflict with the Royal Navy. Outnumbered on all seas, unable to finance both a huge military force and a strong navy in the same time, decisive victory against the RN was impossible. But... We could hurt them very hard on all their supply routes and forbid invasions by filling the seas with light corsairs too fast to be caught by larger formations. Thus, pushing the Royal Navy on a defensive stance. The Marine Nationale was built to counter the Royal Navy, because countering the Royal Navy was an assurance of naval supremacy over other naval powers of those times. Fast Battlecruisers like the Dunkerque, Fast light cruisers, superdestroyers and a bunch of long range submarines. Le Fantasque was the apex of this doctrine of hit strong and flee fast.

[@boobah5643]

@@yc2673 While I'm certainly no expert, every time Drach talks about inter-war French ships he's always discussing them designing ships to deal with the Italians or (later) the Germans. Presumably because the only navy on the planet that had a real chance against the Royal Navy was the USN.

[@Edi_J]

@@boobah5643 French were in the 20th century already closely allied with the British as they had the common goal of preserving "the golden epoque" status quo, while since the WW1 US were in the process of actively taking the "world hegemon" position from UK. At the cost of other colonial powers, like France, as well. While UK and France focused on containing local European forces of Germany and Italy, USA until the very late 1930's well regarded both nazi Germany and fascist Italy, not only because of the influence of large German and Italian diasporas, but rather strategically - to weaken UK and France...

[@laurentdavid2147]

@@yc2673 French naval spending were low considering the french colonies of the time. French naval doctrine was much targeted at protecting those colonies. General idea was to build "better" warships and destroyers, quicker with better guns and aiming systems in order to be able to accept or refuse fights, and to be able to get good artillery results while staying out of adversaries efficient artillery ranges. Tsushima battle had a huge impact on naval doctrines of the 20' and 30', and this battle showed the interest of having both a more precise artillery at long range and a better speed to be able to choose the fighting range.

[@vojtechslezak4553]

Engineer: so how fast do you want your ship to go? French navy: YES

[@davidlees2963]

I think that should read: Engineer: so how fast do you want your ship to go? French Navy: Oui.

[@ricardokowalski1579]

Sports we didn't know we need: warship drag racing

[@VersusARCH]

More like: MN: "37kts" Shipyard: "Ok. Here's your 45kts ship" MN: "8D"

[@camenbert5837]

Royal Navy drag an Abdiel into a shed at Devonport, and do some serious tea-drinking...

[@phaasch]

These ships are just gorgeous looking, and must have been incredibly well-founded, to be able to cope with hull speeds up to c.55mph

[@richardcutts196]

As I understand it the 5.5" gun was chosen because it had the largest shell that could be quickly reloaded over a sustained period without wearing out the crew. It wasn't just the French that adapted a 5.5" gun. The British had 5.5" anti-surface secondaries on Hood, and the Japanese adapted a 5.5" gun for their Kuma class cruisers and as anti-surface secondaries for some of their battleships.

[@colbeausabre8842]

There werr a variety of changes to armament for the various ships in WW2 "Le Triomphant had been seized by the British in July 1940 and was turned over to the Free French. Later that year her aft superfiring 138.6 mm gun replaced by a British 4-inch (102 mm) Mk V AA gun and a Type 128 Asdic system was installed. The 35 kg depth charges and their rails were removed and the ship was fitted with four Modèle 1918 depth-charge throwers abreast the aft superstructure for 100-kilogram (220 lb) depth charges. During a subsequent refit in mid-1941, the Hotchkiss machine guns were relocated to positions on the forecastle deck and their former positions were occupied by single mounts for 2-pounder (40 mm (1.6 in)) Mk II AA guns. A quadruple mount for Hotchkiss machine guns taken from the battleship Paris was installed atop the aft superstructure and rails for British Mk VIIH depth charges were installed on the stern. A fixed antenna for a Type 286M search radar was also installed. A late 1942 refit in Australia exchanged the 13.2 mm machine guns for six 20-millimeter (0.8 in) Oerlikon light AA guns and the Type 286M radar was replaced by a Type 290 system with a rotating antenna. While Le Triomphant was en route to the United States in 1944 for a comprehensive refit, its British Mk V AA gun was replaced by a 138.6 mm gun from L'Audacieux. The Americans installed SA early-warning, SF surface-search and a British Type 285 fire-control radar, removed her aft torpedo tubes to save weight and converted some boiler feedwater tanks to fuel oil to improve her range. Her AA armament had been removed earlier and now consisted of six 40-millimeter (1.6 in) Bofors guns in twin-gun mount and eleven Oerlikon guns in single mounts. In early 1943 Le Terrible and Le Fantasque were similarly refitted in the United States although their anti-aircraft armament consisted of eight Bofors guns in one quadruple and two twin-gun mounts and eight Oerlikon guns in single mounts. After repairing damage suffered during the Naval Battle of Casablanca in November 1942 Le Malin followed her sisters to the United States and was similarly refitted. In 1944-1945, the supplies of the French 200 kg depth charges began to run out so the depth charge chutes were sealed off and rails for Mk VIIIH depth charges were added to those ships that lacked them. In December 1944, Le Malin had her worn-out Mle 1929 guns replaced by salvaged Mle 1927 guns. After these refits, the French re-rated them as light cruisers

[@aAaa-ih3hw]

I'm guessing at 6:49 we can see the Le Triomphant with the 4 inch british AA gun.

[@SlavicCelery]

I love the fact that the French ships that made it to the State's were suitably dakka'd up.

[@mikearmstrong8483]

"Captain, which side are we on, Allied or Axis?" "French." "Umm....ok, which side is France on, Allied or Axis?" "Yes." "Soooo......who are we fighting?" "The Japanese, because we were built to fight Italy but Germany invaded us and our ally Britain sank more of our ships than our enemy did." "I'm confused." "When we get to the other side of this ocean, then we'll change sides to fight the same enemy and it will all be clear." "When will that be?" "At this speed, by lunchtime."

[@khaelamensha3624]

Thanks for the laugh just brilliant! Regards from France! 😉

[@AndreRiviera]

Cette situation a été causée par l'invasion allemande et par la division de la France en deux (Paris et Vichy). Dans ma propre famille il y avait des personnes qui collaboraient avec les allemands, pour garder leur outil de travail, et les allemands les payaient en marks, il y avait aussi des résistants qui donnaient du ravitaillement au maquisards. C'est une situation très complexe, et heureusement le Général de Gaulle a su réconcilier les Français après la guerre. Merci pour cette série sur les Contre-Torpilleurs "Lévriers de la mer", j'ai eu la chance de voir le dernier, "Le Malin" dans le port de Lorient en 1979 qui servait de "brise-lames". Pour obtenir ces performances de vitesse, les coques et les membrures de cette série étaient en ferro-nikel, plus légère que de l'acier normal. 🙏

[@bonose12]

Holy crap...that's as fast as a German E boat at 43 kts and 100 tons. Nimitz class carriers have 260000hp on 100000 tons. Well done France.

[@alexsis1778]

I mean she was meant to hunt down things like the German E boat to defend the fleet. Nothing more scary than something the size of a small cruiser that can outrun your speed boat.

[@khaelamensha3624]

Or race a long Lance torpedoes 😉😂 meaning they outrance all others torpedoes 😇😁

[@M167A1]

In world of warships I always picture this class being manned by the French from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

[@khaelamensha3624]

We're do you think we are taunting wiz this outrageous axent? 😂Regards from France 😉

[@bladekite2607]

Pity they couldn't make a museum ship of one them because they are truly a marvel ship

[@AWPtical800]

100K hp in a 2500 ton ship: the naval equivalent of LS swapping a Mazda Miata.

[@ph89787]

Jeremy Clarkson: Speed and power solves many things.

[@edwinsalau150]

When France decided to design a good ship they could come through! This was a prime example!

[@VRichardsn]

Richelieu was another. So was Algerie. Or L'Ocean. And the 74s. Damn, coming to think of it, the French were fantastic as this shipping business.

[@edwinsalau150]

@@VRichardsn Normandie comes to mind!

[@edwinsalau150]

@@VRichardsn if only the British and French and Germans had learned to standernize ammo! Logistics would have been so much easier!

[@SynchroScore]

Liberté, égalité, vélocité!

[@khaelamensha3624]

Brilliant excellent!

[@SynchroScore]

@@khaelamensha3624 Merci.

[@xSRGman]

the jeremy clarkson of destroyers: *SPEEED* and *POWEEEER*

[@ph89787]

What’s the James May and Richard Hammond versions?

[@derrickstorm6976]

If there was a short, drunk and bloated destroyer, That would be Jeremy Clarkson

[@silverhost9782]

@@ph89787 The Hammond destroyers would have to be the scrap iron flotilla. Small, not very impressive looking, but very angry all the time

[@Paludion]

I want those destroyers to have a race with the fast cruisers of the Royal Navy for which you did a video a while back. Edit : sorry, the fast minelayers of the Abdiel class.

[@Dave_Sisson]

Well there are big car ferries that cruise at 50 knots these days (made by a company called Incat), but 42 knots is an incredible speed for a warship of any time.

[@stupitdog9686]

In about 1969 I was working in a Navy RIB in the Firth of Forth (or other way round?) when HMS Rapid went past at over 40 kts. (Or so I was told,) anyway, it was an unforgetable sight with the wake from her props bursting out of the surface about 300yds behind her as high as her masts & a bow wave higher than her bow gun!! It was almost good enough to make me feel proud to be in the RN ...... almost.

[@1977Yakko]

In terms of turret layout, it almost look the the USN saw these ships and applied them to the Fletcher class only instead of extreme speed they wound up with some pretty impressive AA firepower for a destroyer.

[@colbeausabre8842]

No, the USN was mounting 5 5-38's on its DD's from the earliest days of the Gold Platers. First, in what the RN would call a A-B-P-X-Y layout and then in a A-B-Q-X-Y layout as in the Fletchers Farragut class "These were the first US destroyers with a dual-purpose main armament. They received five of the then-new 5 in (127.0 mm)/38cal gun (Mark 12), installed in Mark 21 dual-purpose single mounts.[15] The forward two mounts (numbered 51 and 52) were partially enclosed with lightly-armored open-back shields. (see picture) The midships mount (No 53) and the after two mounts (numbers 54 and 55) were open. Unlike subsequent five-gun US destroyers, mount 53 was immediately aft of the stacks."

[@1977Yakko]

@@colbeausabre8842 Thanks for the information.

[@luisnunes3863]

Can we have an episode on the Zara class cruisers of the Italian Navy? It's time. They have such an interesting war career!

[@45641560456405640563]

Love those ships.

[@d.olivergutierrez8690]

Definitely, not always you have the experience of being sneak attacked by battleships at point blank range 😋

[@luisnunes3863]

@@45641560456405640563 Gorgeous and usefull, rare combination!

[@louisinjoliet8546]

How often does a new power plant found to be over powered from "on paper?" It sounds like it could be problematic for the stresses on the rest of the ship. Based on what Drach is saying, the French took advantage of this

[@Tidebo1]

French destroyers of this era look so good

[@DavidConnor]

Been a follower for many years but have been out of the loop for a while. I have asked for a segment on the USS Narwhal SS 167, her sister Nautilus and near sister Argonaut. All had two 6" deck guns. My 1976 submarine class photo was taken with one of Narwhal's deck guns behind us. I hope they are still there. I finished at the top of my SONAR schools and was given the privilege to select my boat. Had heard many good things about SSN-671 and jumped at it. I didn't go wrong. I bend anyone's ear to talk about her. SSN-671 had quite a career too. SS-167 and sisters were all older boats entering WWII yet they fulfilled their missions. Narwhal earned 17 battle stars. She was retired before the end of the war. Resources were needed to support the newer boats. We were honored to have crew members of SS-167 at the decommissioning reunion of my boat SSN-671 in 1999. I doubt any of those diesel boaters remain living. God rest their souls. These boats were not the most fascinating but they all did their duty. I know their histories and i believe your viewers will like to know too. I hope to live long enough to seen a fourth USS Narwhal, SS-17, SS-167 and SSN-671 commissioned. She must include in her hull numbers of 1, 6 & 7. Good numbers all. During my time almost every navy with a submarine fleet had a Narwhal, even Ivan's. From your stories I know how traditions, names and shall I call it, good luck, do matter. Sorry to not have been around for bit but like a coin under a mast, I come back now and then. Ta ta for now, Dave

[@DavidConnor]

I would like to add, USS Nautilus SSN-571 was still commissioned but not very active while I was aboard SSN-671. We were a hot running fast attack submarine. We had returned from a multi month deployment with the crew on stand down. We were the ready boat. Fully worked up and qualified for anything. The crew was recalled and we went sea within 24 hours. I never learned the reason why. Ivan's dirty tricks I suppose. We treated Nautilus like our sister, just like the WWII boats did.

[@TheHallPartnership]

These short videos are brilliantly informative. Prompted me to rewatch the HMS Abdiel class video. These two classes must have encountered each other post war. Can't find any reports.

[@michaelkovacic2608]

So let me get this straight: these fast boizzz had twice the horsepower of a Nelson-class battleship?

[@rring44]

That is crazy. I am sure the machinery in the Nelson was far larger and heavier than in those destroyers and the Nelson is younger than the La Fantasque.

[@rictusmetallicus]

The yanks built big V8 with less horsepower than my 4 cylinder family car. Size isn't everything. This is the naval equivalent of the Renault 5 Turbo

[@bigblue6917]

@@rring44 I get the feeling that the machinery in a Nelson would sink the La Fantasque by shear weight alone.

[@bigblue6917]

This may be true. But which one would you sooner be in if they faced off with each other.

[@bigblue6917]

@@rictusmetallicus For a nation which came up with the phrase 'more bang for a buck the US took their eye of the ball for that one.

[@jonrolfson1686]

A foreshadowing, perhaps, of the effective late Cold War functional merging of Destroyers and Light Cruisers related to the preponderant switch from guns and torpedoes to rockets and turbo-jet propelled missiles.

[@sfs2040]

Uh torpedoes are still regularly used by surface ships

[@CanalTremocos]

@@sfs2040 Would be an interesting question for a drydock because i suspect a destroyer or light cruiser haven't hit another surface warship with a torpedo since WW2. I can only remember torpedoes being used by light attack ships and submarines, in anger, in the post-war.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

@@CanalTremocos only because the Destroyer moved away from anti shipping torpedoes to purely ASW. The Cold War threat was mostly submarines.

[@CanalTremocos]

@@WALTERBROADDUS Either cause or effect, Jon's point stands.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

@@CanalTremocos not entirely. Most of the early missile systems were either cruise missiles or Surface to air. It took a while for true anti shipping missiles to appear.

[@danschneider9921]

These ships carry on the French tradition of having to do everything just a little different from everyone else. God bless them

[@rob5944]

A handy lesson in French ships and their seemingly impressive powerplants!

[@Dilley_G45]

What French Engineering can do... THESE SHIPS...TGV....Concorde....when I grew up all I saw was French cars in the neighborhood and they were rust Magnets in the 70s and 80s. With a horrible "one lever for all functions design" (Indicator light fog lights horn wipers...). I thought French engineering was crap. So much about first impressions 😆

[@rob5944]

@@Dilley_G45 most cars rusted back then. Citroen was rather an eccentric manufacturer I believe, however French cars from the millennium onwards seem to be corrosion free. They're either brilliant or rubbish, a little like in football and rugby! Lol

[@Dilley_G45]

@@rob5944 al cars rusted but the French cars rusted before they left the yard

[@rob5944]

@@Dilley_G45 they said the same about British ones, Japanese ones, Vauxhalls too in the 50s and 60s. Water traps and poor treatments were almost universal I think you'll find.

[@Dilley_G45]

@@rob5944 just remember as a kid in the 80s they always said...never buy French cars...they're the worst...we didn't have British ones...and yes japanese were.only getting famous in the 90s

[@myopiniongoodyouropinionbad]

French ships are always so interesting looking

[@davidbrennan660]

That is a very wide term, their trucks, hand weapons and Airframes are also so still covered it seems.

[@Aelxi]

CLICKED THE VIDEO SO FAST JUST LIKE LE FANTASQUES Also Drach, heard JS Shimakaze and Kashima are in Britain now. Have you gotten a chance to see them?

[@Drachinifel]

I saw Kashima when visiting Belfast :)

[@issacfoster1113]

Wow I came here as fast as the Le fantasque DDs

[@RD1R]

Dirty French dd players- hue hue hue 🥖🇫🇷🏁

[@quentintin1]

a note on the interwar refits: the twin 37mm were never automatic guns, they were the same semi-automatic, manually loaded guns (the breech opened automatically after fire and laid open for the next round to be loaded) guns as on the previous mounts, but now with two tubes per station which almost doubled the effective rate of fire the only automatic 37mm the French navy was the Mle 1935 guns mounted on the Amiens, and that was still a prototype when war hit with other types being under consideration

[@Shaun_Jones]

A single-shot 37mm AA gun…I’d rather have a Type 96.

[@quentintin1]

@@Shaun_Jones the ships were designed and laid down end 1920's-start 1930s i don't think at the time there were much automatic guns of that calibre going around, at the same time the Germans were mounting the 3.7cm SK C/30, which worked the same way the us 1.1" wouldn't come before the mid 30's and the english pom pom proved not so good during the war, on german ships we'll have to wait 1938 to see automatic 37mm guns, only the Italians had such guns and only in limited numbers as they were adopted only a year before the first Fantasque was laid

[@Shaun_Jones]

@@quentintin1 fair enough, but both the French and the Germans were using those single shot guns in WW2, by which point they were almost useless.

[@quentintin1]

@@Shaun_Jones France was a question of timing, they were investigating those guns in the later 1930s but were never able to further it much due to the quick defeat (in addition to the gun on the Amiens, they were considering a Hotchkiss and a Schneider design, and were also buying 40mm Bofors guns) and Germany was doing it's darnest to replace the C/30 with C/38 guns, but the needs of the army prevailed over that of the navy for many things so delivery of guns was probably less than what the navy needed to completely displace the guns from use

[@mnxs]

Ship's engineers be like, THE NOISE! THE SPEED! AND THE NOISE OF THE SPEED!

[@jec1ny]

Wow. France builds a fast, well designed ship that actually works better than planned. And they are sexy to boot.

[@cdixy302]

These are actually beautiful ships! I hadn't heard of them before.

[@The_Modeling_Underdog]

The captains of the Le Fantasque class after checking the technical specs: "Absolute Powaaaahhh!!!" Naming all of those ships must have certainly felt like a vengeance upon Drach by those said captains. You're getting better at it, mate. Also, the Le Fantasque class seems to be one of the cleanest ships ever desgined. Especially after removing the rear mast. That thing was made to run.

[@colbeausabre8842]

Jackie Fisher's dream boat

[@theleva7]

Not quite, some at least 12" rifles needed

[@Shrrrg]

Also mine

[@americanrambler4972]

Wow, these puppies were fast! Close to 50 mph at full boil! These guys could really scoot!

[@bradjohnson4787]

My mouth opened upon hearing 40 plus knots!

[@FlyTyer1948]

Marvelous speed for a ship.

[@jimpollard9392]

Beautiful ships, exotic to my American eyes. Much unlike the French aircraft from this era, so many of which were bizarre monstrosities. And also so unlike the French pre-dreadnoughts.

[@PhantomLover007]

Drach I have enjoyed your videos on warships since finding it during the pandemic. Keep up the good work on such an excellent series

[@willrogers3793]

I love the picture displayed at 5:29 because it perfectly illustrates that “destroyer” does not necessarily mean “small”.

[@_the_wolff_2652]

I really like this class. Thx Drach! :)

[@dungeonrat]

Your channel has the best naval history anywhere! I just love watching these superb videos!

[@steventoby3768]

I see these ships more as technology demonstrators than practical warships. The USN had a conference on war experience with destroyers where it was revealed that at speeds above 35 knots it became very hard to launch torpedoes. While USN interwar destroyers were often capable of 36, 37 knots or more officially (and several bettered 39 on trials), Fletcher gained so much weight in the design and construction stages that on trials she made only 35.1 knots (in Friedman's table in the back of US Destroyers (1982). That's why the Fletchers, even though they were later than Le Fantasque and boasted fairly advanced steam pressures/temperatures, were no threat to the French in top speed. It's somewhat mysterious that a ship designed for 37 knots had propellers capable of absorbing all that extra power without self-destructing in the cavitation environment above 40 knots. There's a photo of one of them in drydock (in warship International, I think) showing propellers that are indeed extremely large and high area ratio that makes me suspect the propeller designer realized there could be a problem before the ship was completed.

[@jabaited]

Le Fantasque-class: We're SPEED

[@trooperdgb9722]

Another excellent video about ships this old navy man had never heard of...

[@slims.8096]

My god, it's a pleasure to see a new video from Drach but also a pain to hear him destroy every French word in it 😂

[@derrickstorm6976]

🤭

[@eclispesentinel9728]

Except for "L'indomptable", which is clearly the worst of the batch to pronounce for english-speaking people, I found it pretty good (french being always hard to pronounce for non-native speakers). What words do you think he destroyed?

[@slims.8096]

@@eclispesentinel9728 On the first minutes he just butchered "Torpilleur d'escadre" but then saved himself of the "contre torpilleur" xD

[@Drachinifel]

You can blame the English high school French course I took 😀

[@freddiejones2551]

Note to Drach. The French speakers don't like your French pronunciation. So don't cover French ships. Sorted.

[@KyriosMirage]

"Prepare the ship for LUDICROUS SPEED!"

[@GrumpyGrobbyGamer]

Wildly beautiful destroyers! Thank you Drach for the information! As always well delivered.

[@grathian]

The USN was in the process of designing their next generation of destroyers, which became the Forrest Shermans at the time they had Le Fantasque in a shipyard for overall. They were looking to achieve similar performance on a similar hull, so they dug in to it. They found that while the trial performance was amazing, the actual operational performance was far less impressive. The trials had been run in pristine weather, with the ships practically empty, on a deep water course, with the boilers overly forced and safeties bypassed. Operationally, they were seldom good for 36 knots, less when reconfigured to be effective fighting a war. The USN was looking to regain the 38kt sea speeds of the early Fletchers, now struggling to operate at 33 in the Pacific loaded down with wartime modifications.

[@michaelmorford3932]

Sounds like a fun ship class to have in Warthunder

[@agesflow6815]

Thank you, Drachinifel.

[@markarellano6899]

Love the channel Drach!! Thank you fer all the quality content!!!

[@gkett1609]

i was taken aback by how similar this design was compared to the Fletcher class. the Fletchers had more torpedoes, were slower, and had far more AA. cruising range? to me the Fletchers were uniquely beautiful until i saw this video today.

[@bluelemming5296]

@G Kett The comparison needs to be a lot more detailed if you really want to understand the differences between the ships. For example, the Fletchers were shorter ships, which means the LF has an advantage due to a naval engineering property known as 'natural speed', which basically says it's easier to make longer ships go fast and/or burn fuel more efficiently than shorter ships, all else being equal (hence the super-tanker and giant container ships of today). The size difference means there is a little bit of an 'apples and oranges' comparison going on. Despite having the disadvantage of being shorter, the Fletchers actually had enormously more range than the LF. Had the Fletcher's been designed with identical length as the LF, they could have been faster ships than they were - not necessarily faster than the LF, but it's hard to say - it would depend in part on how they used the extra space. Note that the LF were built with no sonar - the French didn't have a working sonar system when they were built - so they had zero real anti-submarine capability when built - they had depth charges but they weren't much use without sonar unless they caught a sub at close range on the surface. Also, the Fletchers had depth charge throwers as well as rails, I don't think the LF had anything comparable. The ships of the LF class that survived long enough would eventually receive upgrades to their anti-submarine capabilities from British and US dockyards. But, overall, I think it's fair to say that the Fletcher was a vastly superior anti-sub platform. Of course, extra systems come with a price. As the war progressed, the Fletchers had more and more systems on board, so they actually had a larger crew than the original LF despite being a smaller ship - and that affects speed because of the extra weight needed to support not just the extra systems but the living quarters and supplies needed to support the extra people (and you need more supplies for a ship designed for longer ranges). Another point is that the French had inferior metallurgy to the US and Britain, and the French culture/politics of the day led to lots of inconsistencies in manufacturing quality: these two problems had all kinds of implications (see French Destroyers by John Jordan and Jean Moulin, who present things from a French perspective - they discuss these two problems and give some interesting examples). In general, the US high power propulsion systems were a lot more reliable than the French ones: yes the French could go faster, but how long could they sustain that speed without something going wrong? Also, there were lots of reliability problems with other systems in French ships, including the guns (especially the loading systems). When it comes to seakeeping, the comparison is a bit tricky - the Fletchers were probably a little inferior in the Atlantic - but that is hard to say, as it depends on how well the French hull holds up, the raised forecastle is a better hull shape for Atlantic use but then you have to take into account the light construction and potentially inferior metal. Here, too, all else being equal the larger ship has an advantage when it comes to seakeeping, and that's especially true for destroyers with their aggressively optimized hull forms (British corvettes and frigates actually had far better seakeeping qualities than British destroyers, despite being smaller - because they didn't have the long/thin hull shapes of destroyers). The LF had a slightly longer range and heavier shell for its main guns, but the 5in/38 on the Fletcher had the same muzzle velocity (despite a shorter barrel), a far higher rate of fire (even assuming nothing went wrong with the loading systems on the LF), and was a dual purpose gun that could also fire at aircraft - which made it far more flexible than the main guns on the LF, advantage which became even more significant once the radar-fused anti-aircraft shells were developed. Finally, the Fletchers from a fairly early date had far better fire control - the French were way behind in radar as well as sonar, while the US got the early benefit of Britain's research: the fire control for the US 5in/38 would end up being one of the best if not the best gun/fire control combinations in the war (not sure how they would compare to the systems on the RN Battle Class destroyers, but probably better than any other ship not similarly equipped). On the other hand, the French probably had torpedoes that actually worked - and the US didn't for the first few years in the war. Again, some of the LF ships did receive upgrades from British and American dockyards to address some of their as-built limitations. The upgrade history of the LF ships is quite varied: the post-upgrade speed trials after upgrades in the USA were 39.5 and 37 knots for two of the ships, I haven't been able to find the others. Finally, the Fletcher's had splinter protection - which probably saved a lot of lives - I don't think the French ships had anything comparable.

[@camenbert5837]

Fascinating. Given the one that took loads of post-war damage, they don't seem as fatally fragile as one might have thought.

[@richardw64]

They flew like a JAAAAAAAAAGG.

[@phillip0537]

Trials: Captain: "Engineering, I didn't ask for full power yet." Engineering: "We're not at full power!"

[@rackstraw]

Interesting photos of Le Terrible in US Navy Measure 22. A number of French ships (including the battleship Richelieu) received refits in US yards after joining the Free French post-Operation Torch. It's as if the US was saying, "Sorry for shooting up you guys at Casablanca...but you did sortie against us."

[@MalfosRanger]

Better looking than yellow dye sprayed over TF34's flagship's superstructure in that scuffle.

[@BlaBla-pf8mf]

With a speed of 40-45 nm the Le Fantasque class was much faster than current USN frigates and destroyers.

[@boobah5643]

The USN is known to sandbag on the official speed of its fleet. No idea how fast those ships can actually go, just pretty certain the official numbers are low.

[@trooperdgb9722]

@@boobah5643 Agreed.

[@Balmung60]

@@boobah5643 Not really. Most of the US fleet is built around operating with our supercarriers, which despite their official top speed being classified, can't really plausibly be much if any faster than the preceding conventionally-powered supercarriers (they have about the same shaft horsepower, the same number of propellers, and greater displacement). Most of those nuclear carriers can reasonably be extrapolated to a top speed in the range of 30-33 knots, consistent with the official speed of "30+ knots". The physics simply don't back up more fantastical claims like that Enterprise could supposedly do 40 knots. What they do have going for them is that they can maintain that speed or close to it pretty much indefinitely. In general, modern surface warships don't have quite the same insatiable need for speed WWII-era destroyers felt.

[@InchonDM]

For a visual demonstration of how this speed looked in motion, there's a music video on KZbin called "La Royale" by Mauzer, which sets a bunch of interbellum French Navy footage to jazzy futurefunk. Even if that's not your bag of chips, in the middle of it there's a shot of a French battleship column where _La Triomphant_ just casually cuts right through the middle as through the rest of the ships are standing still.

[@ronalddevine9587]

Your French was just fine. Wow, 41 plus knots? Speedboat! Vive La difference.

[@adamtruong1759]

These DDs are probably my favorite French DDs in WW2.

[@inyobill]

05:34: Excellent look at the long barrels.

[@Owktree]

Very good turn of speed and I guess good enough for a scouting role in the Med verses the Italians. However, I seem to recall that their range was limited, especially if they were doing much steaming at high speed.

[@ssanneru]

Yeah, but... the Mediterranean. Range is an optional extra.

[@ExploreTheUKWithMe]

Cool to see Would love to see more about navy’s other than the big 5-6 during 1910-1950 there were a lot of ships built close to my home in the north east England that were for navy’s all over the world it’s quite amazing you only hear about Uk France Germany USA Japan Italy

[@whyjnot420]

If you think about it, 20 miles _per day_ is a decent sustained speed for a human to maintain (try mowing lawns with old variable speed pulley transmissions which are too weak to use a sulky (those little wheeled platforms towed by the mower). 50 mph is actually quite a substantial speed all things considered... Seeing something that is roughly 1,200 times heavier than my pickup do that is quite impressive.

[@JackFlame-pl9xj]

as a french and naval intusiaste i can tell that le fantasque its 1 of france intresting destroyers but my favorite is probably mogador

[@jasonz7788]

Thank you

[@needap0078]

Nice Documentary Dracs Any chance you could do a documentary on the Japanese destroyer Kagero?

[@David-il9xw]

If Winston C. could broadcast a message of hope to occupied France, in French, Drach need not apologize for his imperfect, but surely better, pronunciation.

[@jmi5969]

41-45 kts is cavitation territory. How did the French deal with it?

[@terencewong-lane4309]

Cavitation began to affect the hull plating in service......

[@Axel23410]

I haven't seen many mention of cavitation in the sources I have regarding the Fantasque class destroyers. From what I understand, the propellers used on Le Terrible (which were of a different design) were the most satisfactory and similar propellers were subsequently installed on all other members of the class in 1936. I think it's safe to assume that this wasn't as much of an issue in the eyes of the french navy. I do know however that their successors, The Mogadors which were almost as fast as the fantasques, did suffer from particularly heavy cavitation issues during trials (with cavities up to 15mm deep) which led to a complete redesign of their propellers. Should be noted that the still needed to be replaced regularly although that was a problem for most ships of the time.

[@terencewong-lane4309]

@@Axel23410 One of my collection of books (currently in storage) mentions that the hull plating was pitted and deteriorating on some of Les Fantasques; a consequence of poor steel, constant high speed operations and cavitation?

[@terencewong-lane4309]

Les Contre-Torpilleurs de 2,800 tonnes du type Le Fantasque by Jean Lassaque; Marines Éditions.

[@Axel23410]

@@terencewong-lane4309 cavitation only happens on the propellers so I really doubt it would have any significant effect on the hull itself. It is true however that the Fantasques didn't have very sturdy hulls so I can certainly imagine how both the weather, high speed operations and vibration issues could lead to some damage. Out of curiosity, In what book did you find this claim?

[@bullettube9863]

Very fast, well armed and not looking like a hotel at sea, yup, the French got it right this time!

[@Niels_Larsen]

All talk about "Ford v. Ferrari" but I want to see "Arsenal de Lorient v. Ansaldo".

[@KillBones]

Shimakaze : I'm the fastest destroyer! Le Fantasque class : Hold our beers.

[@hawkeye5955]

"Hold our baguettes"

[@khaelamensha3624]

No beer only wine monsieur 😇😁😂

[@williaml.]

Love your french accent !

[@scotthill8787]

Oh, Drach. I love it when you speak French to me!

[@khaelamensha3624]

Fan of a fish called Wanda? 😉😇😁

[@davidbrennan660]

The neeeeeeeed fior a five minute guide.......!

[@michaelminch5490]

"...absurdly powerful machinery..." Yeah, 50-ish mph is a bit ridiculous for a ship of that size. Had to look it up - these things were as fast as the American PT boats in the Pacific war.

[@johnbuchman4854]

You see, we like to think that we can get out of trouble quicker than we got into it... --Oddball (Kelley's Heros)

[@jp-um2fr]

Cricky, I didn't know the French had it in em. They had lives similat to the old days of sale when ships changed sides all over the place. The Frensh made ships certainly a good addition to the Royal Navy. You didn't mention where they kept the rations, frogs, snails, pate, wine, that sort of thing.

[@ascendence575]

I thought that the French naval defense of Syria/Lebanon in WW2 was interesting. Especially, the actions of the 2 large destroyers, Valmy and Guepard.

[@wildcolonialman]

Fabulous.

[@sepuk]

That speed is kinda pretty high ... hot hatch?

[@WortWortWortHog]

Pardon me if this has been answered on a dry dock before but I have a question. Will you do a look into fire retardant materials aboard ships? This could range from wooden ships (did they coat their vessels or pack any materials aboard to limit or prevent them catching fire) to pre-dreadnought iron hulled vessels and onward. You have a great video on damage controls and what they did once it was on fire and you have mentioned practices like storing charges separate from the turret and fire curtains aboard carriers. I was pondering more on materials similar to asbestos.

[@aaronh9556]

You can see a well detailed model of this Ship and other famous ships in the PC game World of Warships.

[@muhammadnursyahmi9440]

La Fantasque class, aka "what if we let Jeremy Clarkson design a destroyer" destroyer.

[@kidmohair8151]

gee, those french...they've got a destroyer for everything!

[@Right-Is-Right]

Never knew the Aussies sank a French ship, pretty cool.

[@Hchris101]

Boats are cool 😎

[@808bigisland]

They rarely driven full power. After a few years expect 50% power left and every outing is reducing boiler and drivetrain life.

[@carytaylor1415]

Please do a video on the somewhat obscure British CAM merchant ships!

[@ScipioAfricanusI]

Very nice video, though brief. Can you make a video exploring the different national traditions regarding museum ships? Here in the US we have a significant number. I have always felt that the RN is woefully under-represented. What about other countries?

[@talthan]

wish you would come out with a pocket t-shirt or a button down oxford shirt.

[@mytube001]

What are those vertical lines hanging from a yardarm behind the mast for? These can be seen on many ships, even today on ships like Ticonderoga cruisers and OHP frigates.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Lines for signal flags?

[@mytube001]

@@WALTERBROADDUS Signal flags surely died out when radio was invented. And why would you need space for maybe 100-150 flags at the same time? No, that can't be it.

[@kilianortmann9979]

@@mytube001 Signal flags are still very much a thing. Mostly for backup, but also for ceremonial purposes and in case of a power outage. Messages using flags can get quite long, Nelsons famous: "ENGLAND EXPECTS THAT EVERY MAN WILL DO HIS DUTY" took 31 flags to signal.

[@mytube001]

@@kilianortmann9979 Insane. We live in a modern world. There should be absolutely no need for something that primitive. I guess these old navy guys are too fond of stupid traditions.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

@@mytube001 Actually, flags were used as radio signals can be intercepted. Morse lamp and Semaphore were other visual communication systems.