WoWS: Pictures of the French Cruisers

Warning! Pic heavy.

Tier 1: Bougainville

Tier 2: Jurien de la Gravière

Tier 3: Friant

Tier 4: Duguay Trouin

Tier 5: Emile Bertin

Tier 6: la Galissonnière

Tier 7: Algérie

Tier 8: Charles Martel

Tier 9: Saint Louis

Tier 10: Henri IV


29 thoughts on “WoWS: Pictures of the French Cruisers

  1. so whats their gimmick
    US were fat slow shells. with thick all around armor that isn’t actually enough to block anything.
    AA thats useless in most matches

    IJN were fat fast shells with slow rof. good torpedos. strong side citadels, but massive in size and again, not enough to block anything.

    German were fast small shells with weak HE. epic torpedo arcs. weak citadels but small and under the waterline to make them impossible to hit without plunging or some serious luck.
    long term hydro.

    Russian were fast big shells. epic torpedo arcs but no range on the torps. weak citadels, big citadels. big ship.

    and british are…….small shells with next to no HE. no armor. big citadels(not as big as japanese or russian). smoke and so on. essentially big DDs with citadels and no torps.

    so what will the french line be.

    because i’m still waiting for a line that has enough armor on the citadel to actually be worth noting as havign armor. without sacrificing all your HE.


    1. Moskva has good bow armor for what it’s worth. As for the French gimmick, it is rumored they will have engine boost consumable since they were historically fairly quick. Alluding to this in-game, the rare equipment modules that extends the duration of the engine boost consumable says it works on destroyers AND cruisers, hinting that the module may be useful to an upcoming cruiser line, which we can assume is indeed the newly announced French line. I, for one, am excited to see how these ships will play. Plus they mostly all look gorgeous.


      1. eh….gorgeous is in the eye of the beholder.
        for me, Atlanta, Zao, Mogami 155, Yubari, and Prinz Eugen look beautiful.

        as for the engine boost consumable. i’ve always questioned that thing’s usefulness. it seems like such a small boost…does it also increase acceleration speed?


        1. I find all of those ships beautiful too 🙂

          As for how the consumable works, I have no idea how it truly works, but it feels like acceleration is boosted as well as top speed.


    2. They wil use reload bost for guns. Fresh consumable. Front amor is best in crusier.
      good flak and best second guns in crusier. Gemans crusier will be super crap with french boats.

      Alabama Prem. in month as wel.

      New weapon wil mines be.


    3. I can’t say for sure, but since French cruiser-grade guns had very high burst charget ,twice as large as their foreign contemporaries, In fact, barely less explosives than a regular HE round, it might just be that French AP has a slight HE effect to it. Probably no fire chance for balance purposes, but a pronounced splash effect akin to HE.

      That might balance the fact that some of the ships in the branch have apocalyptically bad armor.
      I mean, really, really bad.
      60mm citadel plating bad.


    4. I would suggest not playing any cruiser then, as most were just made to withstand incoming fire from other cruisers at most. so expecting a massive citadel armor is a no go! Also the fact that they weren’t really though of fighting in such close proximity to eachother like in the game :D.

      the only reliable armor for a cruiser is pretty much going bow against the enemy. (cruisers).
      so….uhm moskva i guess.

      the best armored cruisers of WW2 was the baltimore, hipper, takao and mogami if i remember correctly


      1. heh my ideal ship it seems is essentially the scharnhorst.

        aka fast shells(unusual for a battleship. faster shells than most cruisers)
        armor that works(not insanely armored, but enough that you don’t need to worry about beign citadeled every salvo)
        guns that are big enough to reliably do dmg(HE and AP. even vs belt armor), but not so big that their reload and traverse is snail paced.

        sadly it seems its the only one like this…all other battleship have slower shells(usually 700-820, scharnhorst has 890. how many cruisers beat that at tier 7. or even tier 9!)


      2. most armored was Baltimore and Wichita-class proceeded by Italian Zara, Graf Spee (if count it as Cruiser), Cleveland, New Orleans (and lot of other post Northampton/Ohama US cruisers as they had generally had heavy protection), Algérie (on par with Cleveland/New Orleans), Takao/Ibuki (Takao had better belt armor but trash deck armor, while Ibuki worse belt but better deck), Hipper (trash 30mm deck, turtle back is also the same bad 30mm along with just 80mm belt armor) and rest of cruiser


        1. Actually, Graf Spee had nowhere near the same protection as Wichita. Wichita had a pretty hefty 160mm’s of belt armour, compared to AGS’s 80… Wichita surpassed the Deutchland class in armour in all other areas as well.
          In fact the entire Deutchland class is pretty weird for me in that regard: They have heavy armament, sure, but their protection is far far behind of what you’d expect for the speed they have, or then their speed is far lower than what you’d expect for their protection (pick one, it’s all the same).
          Wichita is pretty much the most heavily armoured heavy cruiser the US had until the Baltimore class rolled around, and even those “only” had 6″ (152mm) main belts.
          IJN cruisers had indeed rather heavy protection (notice I didn’t write effective…), but they mostly payed for that by being grossly overweight and in most cases top heavy.


          1. Graf Spee had reinforced belt to 100mm along second 40mm plate behind

            its generally normal for most Treaty cruiser they had heavy armament but armor wasn’t best.

            about Baltimore you forgot that it had additional layered 16mm STS plating (with is armor grande) on main belt with add around 12-13mm to its effective thickness (as its layered armor, not single piece).

            ok i also completed small comparison
            (Caliber Radius Head) on of things affecting ballistic profile
            most WW1 shells were 2-4crh

            UK 14-15inch shells generally have 4-6crh (due to fact that not all battleships could handle 6crh shells)

            German 380mm (Bismarck) 10crh
            German 283mm (Scharnchorst) 10crh, (Graf Spee) 8.5crh
            German 203mm 10crh

            Russian 130mm SAP 12.5crh (reason why it have such good ballistic coefficient)
            Russian 152mm have 8crh
            Russian 180mm have 12.5crh

            US 16inch have 9crh+secant ogive ballistic nose shapes with reduce air friction.
            US 14inch have 5crh
            US 8inch have 9crh
            US 6inch used by Cleveland have 9crh, other use 7crh
            US 5inch/37 (used by US DD) have 5.25crh

            Japan battleships and 8inch cruisers had 6crh
            Japan 152mm (from Myoko) 6crh
            Japan 120mm DD have mainly 2crh

            French 8inch have 7crh

            now funny part US shells have mostly similar drag coefficient to Japan… and in some cases even worse despite also having better sectional density with also improves ballistic performance…

            US 16inch/50 (Iowa/Montana)
            mass: 1225kg
            secant ogive ballistic nose
            length: 1.83m
            crh – 9
            in game drag constant: 0.352…
            IRL Time of flight for AP Shell with MV = 2,500 fps (762 mps)
            10,000 yards (9,140 m): 13.2 seconds
            20,000 yards (18,290 m): 29.6 seconds
            30,000 yards (27,430 m): 50.3 seconds
            36,000 yards (32,920 m): 66.1 seconds
            40,000 yards (36,580 m): 80.0 seconds

            Japan 18inch/45 (Yamato)
            mass: 1460kg
            length: 1.95m
            crh – 6
            in game drag constant: 0.292
            IRL Time of flight for APC Shell with MV = 2,559 fps (780 mps)
            18,410 yards (16,830 m): 26.1 seconds
            30,530 yards (27,920 m): 49.2 seconds
            44,510 yards (40,700 m): 89.4 seconds
            45,960 yards (42,030 m): 98.6 seconds

            Japan 16inch/45 (Nagato)
            mass 1000kg
            length: 1.74m
            crh – 6
            in game drag constant: 0.355
            real life flight times: unavilable

            for some reason Colorado also have better drag constant than Iowa 16inch…
            US 16″/45 (Colorado)
            mass 1016kg
            length: 1.62m
            crh – 7
            in game drag constant: 0.336
            IRL Time of flight for AP Shell with MV = 2,520 fps (768 mps)
            10,000 yards (9,140 m): 13.4 seconds
            20,000 yards (18,290 m): 30.6 seconds
            30,000 yards (27,430 m): 53.1 seconds
            36,000 yards (32,920 m): 70.6 seconds

            German 38cm (Bismarck/Tripiz)
            mass; 800kg
            length; 1.67m
            crh – 10
            in game drag constant: 0.2763
            IRL Time of flight for APC Shell with MV = 2,690 fps (820 mps)
            10,940 yards (10,000 m): 13.9 seconds
            21,870 yards (20,000 m): 32.0 seconds
            32,810 yards (30,000 m): 55.5 seconds
            38,280 yards (35,000 m): 69.9 seconds

            not even comparing US normal and super heavy 8inch with both have similar performance except at high end ranges were in game it’s completely different world
            or US 8inch

            Super heavy AP (Baltimore/Des Moines)
            mass: 152kg
            length: 0.91m
            crh – 9
            in game drag constant: 0.356
            IRL Time of flight for 335 lbs. (152 kg) AP Shell with MV = 2,500 fps (762 mps)
            6,000 yards (5,490 m): 8.1 seconds
            10,000 yards (9,140 m): 14.7 seconds
            20,000 yards (18,290 m): 37.2 seconds
            30,000 yards (27,430 m): 77.8 seconds

            standard AP (Pensacola, New Orleans)
            mass: 118kg
            length: 0.91m
            crh – 9
            in game drag constant: 0.321
            IRL Time of flight for AP Shell with MV = 2,800 fps (853 mps)
            6,000 yards (5,490 m): 7.3 seconds
            10,000 yards (9,140 m): 13.4 seconds
            20,000 yards (18,290 m): 35.2 seconds
            30,000 yards (27,430 m): 70.6 seconds

            Japan 8inch (mogami, Ibuki)
            mass: 125kg
            length: 0.9m
            crh – 6
            in game drag constant: 0.337

            bit strange isn’t it: Ballistic coefficient (BC) = SD / F, where SD is the sectional density of the projectile and F is a form factor for the shape of the projectile.

            crh is Caliber Radius Head the higher value the more streamlined and pointed is projectile nose (better ballistic performance)


            1. Boat tailing, degree thereof, or lack thereof also has a major effect. Not sure how US compares there but i know e.g. french 15″ AP was known for very extreme boat tailing.


              1. Also the way the drag coefficient is used in game it just calculates the drag force, not straight deceleration. The effect of better sectional density is thus accounted for there with the lower deceleration (A=F/M). Drag Coefficient is a pure measure of absolute drag, not drag relative to mass.


                1. that’s i know, but keep in mind: that two shell are externally the same only one is heavier compared to second, but in game they have different drag constant’s
                  Super heavy AP (Baltimore/Des Moines)
                  mass: 152kg
                  length: 0.91m
                  crh – 9
                  in game drag constant: 0.356
                  IRL Time of flight for 335 lbs. (152 kg) AP Shell with MV = 2,500 fps (762 mps)
                  6,000 yards (5,490 m): 8.1 seconds
                  10,000 yards (9,140 m): 14.7 seconds
                  20,000 yards (18,290 m): 37.2 seconds
                  30,000 yards (27,430 m): 77.8 seconds

                  standard AP (Pensacola, New Orleans)
                  mass: 118kg
                  length: 0.91m
                  crh – 9
                  in game drag constant: 0.321
                  IRL Time of flight for AP Shell with MV = 2,800 fps (853 mps)
                  6,000 yards (5,490 m): 7.3 seconds
                  10,000 yards (9,140 m): 13.4 seconds
                  20,000 yards (18,290 m): 35.2 seconds
                  30,000 yards (27,430 m): 70.6 seconds

                  IRL differences are barely noticeable expect for very high ranges


  2. I don’t mind a mixture of real and paper/fake ships, so long as there is balance between them. My biggest attraction is of course Algerie. Wish French BBs came first though, but what the heck, more real ships. Viva La France!

    Liked by 2 people

  3. If anyone is interested:

    tier 1 : 3×1 138mm, 15 knots. Not very good guns. 700m/s velocity on not very heavy shells. Much worse than the early Russian 130mm found on the likes of the Bogatyr. Not going to be fun.

    tier 2 : 8×1 164mm, 22knots. Surprisingly good guns. Almost similar to the US 152mm gun with super heavy AP, but with substantially lower reload speed (3 rpm IRL)

    tier 3 :6×1 164mm guns 18 knots, two (very small) torpedo launchers, They might be fixed and submerged, used to “scuttle” enemy ships, I’ll have to check.

    tier 4 : 4×2 155mm guns, 30 knots. Up to 6 torpedoes per side. Very good guns, but slow firing and only had SAP rounds, so penetration might not be as high as expected.

    tier 5 : 3×3 152mm guns, 34 knots. 3×2 central torpedo launchers. Very similar in performance as the 155mm guns, it’s all down to the shells itself to decide if the actual penetration performances are better or worse.

    tier 6 :3×3 152mm guns, 32 knots, 2×2 torpedo launchers, one per side. Same guns as before. This one will be very,very poorly armored. Worse than even British ships.

    tier 7 : 4×2 203mm guns, 32 knots, 2×3 torpedo launchers, one per side. Very, very powerful guns. Shells as heavy as standard USN 203mm AP (not superheavy), with 820m/s velocity. Think Pensacola, but with 4 times more bursting charge.

    tier 8 : 3×3 203mm guns, 34 knots, Same guns, but modernized. 185mm belt armor. A potentially very serious contender for best tier8 CA, with only the Italian Zara capable of dethroning it (which it will, because the Zara is the real reason everyone should be wanting Italian ships)

    tier 9 : 3×3 203mm guns, 34 knots. Probably decent ship, but nothing really special. A Baltimore wrapped in a French flag.

    tier 10 : I have no idea. Some kind of blueprint ship they must have found lying around.


    1. Um your confusing the tier 3 for a protected cruiser, the one we are getting is a design study for the tier 4. The tier 3 will have 3 dual turrets.


      1. Oh right, my bad.
        So 155mm guns at tier4?

        Ugh, this whole branch feels wrong.
        It should all be bumped up a tier.

        Algérie at tier7? That thing was better than the Hipper.
        And the Duguay-Trouin at tier4 makes as little sense as hypothetically having the Leander at tier 4.


        1. I guess they think because they have little to no armor, and maybe slow ROF, they will be very easy to hurt from all types of ships.


    2. Tier 3 is the design 171 study leading to Duguay-Trouin. Guns would be 4×2 138mm, plus torpedoes.

      The 152mm of tiers 5 and 6 were supposed to be leagues better than the tier 4’s 155mm.

      Tier 6 has 100mm of belt armour, the same than Algérie (they were built over almost the same hull design)


    3. Bursting charge has no effect on AP alpha, it’s pure muzzle velocity and shell weight. With a further unique boost for German AP.


      1. That is honestly not something we can tell.

        Especially since most shells of a same caliber currently have roughly similar bursting charge weight.

        So we’ll just see what they do.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.