Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas

France Founders
France Founders

The Marine Nationale had also discovered the light battleship, quite independently of the Italians. Although she had one more dreadnought than Italy, France lacked a direct counter to the fast and powerful Caracciolo. A single 36,000-ton ship was proposed in 1922, but the costs associated with building it and a new 15” or 16” gun were too high at that time.

Three of the obsolete ‘Dantons’ were hastily decommissioned after the signing of the Washington Treaty; their only value had been to support the rationale for a large French battleship tonnage.
The other two were more useful, as Verginaud became a partially armed training ship, and Voltaire would continue to see service for many years as France’s first aircraft carrier. Stripped of her armour belt and turrets, she could meet the 16,000-ton Treaty limit. She had a single hangar added amidships with a capacity of up to 22 planes, and a landing and take-off deck of just over 380’ in length. The funnels were ducted over to port, and several deckhouse arrangements were tried over the following years. She was never more than an experiment, but proved to be a useful start, and was certainly a cheaper option than the new-build carrier that had also been proposed.

However, the loss of the battleship France in August 1922 and a series of minor mutinies left the fleet demoralised, although clemency for the mutineers and an agreement to improve the sailors' lot went a long way to restore basic trust. Beside pay and conditions, new ships were needed. A trio of 7,500-ton cruisers armed with eight 6.1” guns had already been authorised, and in November construction of a pair of 10,000-ton cruisers was agreed, with each to be armed with eight 8” guns.

That was a small first step, but it was the best that could be accomplished in 1922. However, the loss of the France had focused minds back onto the issue of capital ships. Both French and Italian navies now had six dreadnoughts each, and the Italian ships were slightly more modern and more powerful.

Heavy battleships were too expensive and could only be built in tiny numbers, and so quite independently of the Italians, in 1923 French naval architects started development of a ‘light battleship’.
Before the war, ambitious naval expansion plans had been set in motion. All these had been suspended in 1914, but a number of guns and equipment for turrets still existed. As in Italy, the use of guns and part-complete quadruple turrets from pre-war orders would help to keep costs in check. Originally, only a single ship as a replacement for the France was proposed, but as news of the new Italian construction reached Paris, a second ship was added in 1924, and a third was added in 1925 in place of an 8” cruiser.

With one turret forward and one aft, the ‘Lille’ class were odd-looking ships. Like their Italian counterparts they used machinery derived from new French cruisers, in their case the ‘Duquesne’ class.
In other ways, they were a more advanced design than the Italian ships. The 240mm belt was external, but was inclined with the side of the hull at 11-degrees, in an arrangement reminiscent of the British Hood. A shallow bulge was present below the belt, and a fine hull gave excellent performance at the cost of being wet forward in Atlantic conditions.
Their 340mm guns were an improvement on those fitted to the ‘Bretagne’ class battleships. The Model 1912M fired a longer shell with a 5/infinity-crh nosecone and a weight of 1,221lbs. The quadruple turrets were modified to allow a 23-degree elevation; rather low by modern standards, but with the new shell, maximum range was a very adequate 28,000 yards.

Officially, the ships were listed as 22,950 tons Standard, although the design as approved was 23,150 tons, with weight reductions expected during construction. It remains unclear whether these were ever achieved, as trials were run at relatively realistic displacements. In any case, weight was soon added in the form of additional anti-aircraft weaponry, as was permitted under the terms of the Treaty.

Lille Light BC.png

Toulon as she appeared in the late 20s​

Outline of the Lille class.

LOA: 697’ Beam: 91’
22,950 tons Standard Displacement; 28,000 tons Full Load.

8-13.4” guns, 8-5.1” guns, 4-75mm guns (HA).

9.5” Belt, 3” Main Deck, 10” Barbettes, 12”-3” Turrets, 12” Conning Tower, 1.5” Torpedo Bulkhead.

106,000shp for 31 knots
(Lyon on trials: 113,650shp = 31.16 knots at 26,350 tons, real sea speed 29-30 knots).
 
And so the era of the fast battleship begins. With all these fast ships from Japan, Italy and France cropping up Britain has to respond. As soon as Britain goes fast America will need to as well.

The French have got themselves a nice ship as well.

Question, if the French inthe future wanted to go for a 16" gun could they buy British if relations were good enough? Not suggesting it's going to happen just wondering if it could under the treaty
 
France Founders

The Marine Nationale had also discovered the light battleship, quite independently of the Italians. Although she had one more dreadnought than Italy, France lacked a direct counter to the fast and powerful Caracciolo. A single 36,000-ton ship was proposed in 1922, but the costs associated with building it and a new 15” or 16” gun were too high at that time.

Three of the obsolete ‘Dantons’ were hastily decommissioned after the signing of the Washington Treaty; their only value had been to support the rationale for a large French battleship tonnage.
The other two were more useful, as Verginaud became a partially armed training ship, and Voltaire would continue to see service for many years as France’s first aircraft carrier. Stripped of her armour belt and turrets, she could meet the 16,000-ton Treaty limit. She had a single hangar added amidships with a capacity of up to 22 planes, and a landing and take-off deck of just over 380’ in length. The funnels were ducted over to port, and several deckhouse arrangements were tried over the following years. She was never more than an experiment, but proved to be a useful start, and was certainly a cheaper option than the new-build carrier that had also been proposed.

However, the loss of the battleship France in August 1922 and a series of minor mutinies left the fleet demoralised, although clemency for the mutineers and an agreement to improve the sailors' lot went a long way to restore basic trust. Beside pay and conditions, new ships were needed. A trio of 7,500-ton cruisers armed with eight 6.1” guns had already been authorised, and in November construction of a pair of 10,000-ton cruisers was agreed, with each to be armed with eight 8” guns.

That was a small first step, but it was the best that could be accomplished in 1922. However, the loss of the France had focused minds back onto the issue of capital ships. Both French and Italian navies now had six dreadnoughts each, and the Italian ships were slightly more modern and more powerful.

Heavy battleships were too expensive and could only be built in tiny numbers, and so quite independently of the Italians, in 1923 French naval architects started development of a ‘light battleship’.
Before the war, ambitious naval expansion plans had been set in motion. All these had been suspended in 1914, but a number of guns and equipment for turrets still existed. As in Italy, the use of guns and part-complete quadruple turrets from pre-war orders would help to keep costs in check. Originally, only a single ship as a replacement for the France was proposed, but as news of the new Italian construction reached Paris, a second ship was added in 1924, and a third was added in 1925 in place of an 8” cruiser.

With one turret forward and one aft, the ‘Lille’ class were odd-looking ships. Like their Italian counterparts they used machinery derived from new French cruisers, in their case the ‘Duquesne’ class.
In other ways, they were a more advanced design than the Italian ships. The 240mm belt was external, but was inclined with the side of the hull at 11-degrees, in an arrangement reminiscent of the British Hood. A shallow bulge was present below the belt, and a fine hull gave excellent performance at the cost of being wet forward in Atlantic conditions.
Their 340mm guns were an improvement on those fitted to the ‘Bretagne’ class battleships. The Model 1912M fired a longer shell with a 5/infinity-crh nosecone and a weight of 1,221lbs. The quadruple turrets were modified to allow a 23-degree elevation; rather low by modern standards, but with the new shell, maximum range was a very adequate 28,000 yards.

Officially, the ships were listed as 22,950 tons Standard, although the design as approved was 23,150 tons, with weight reductions expected during construction. It remains unclear whether these were ever achieved, as trials were run at relatively realistic displacements. In any case, weight was soon added in the form of additional anti-aircraft weaponry, as was permitted under the terms of the Treaty.

View attachment 549826
Toulon as she appeared in the late 20s​

Outline of the Lille class.

LOA: 697’ Beam: 91’
22,950 tons Standard Displacement; 28,000 tons Full Load.

8-13.4” guns, 8-5.1” guns, 4-75mm guns (HA).

9.5” Belt, 3” Main Deck, 10” Barbettes, 12”-3” Turrets, 12” Conning Tower, 1.5” Torpedo Bulkhead.

106,000shp for 31 knots
(Lyon on trials: 113,650shp = 31.16 knots at 26,350 tons, real sea speed 29-30 knots).
Nice ship !
As expected the French and Italian are responding to each other programs (even if it's not necessarily the main reason). And since the weight constraints are heavy, both nation are loosing the torpedoes launchers !! I think the French design is slightly better and more balanced than the Italian's
I note that, if both country have the cash, they can spam one such ship (or their respective improvements) every 14 month while staying inside the treaty limits.
Even with the number of ships ordered (5, 3 French and 2 Italians), it will change the balance of power in the Mediterranean. They give a renewed advantage on Greece and the Ottoman ships. And it might force the RN to respond with fast ship in the theater.

On a side note, OTL the French used the left over machinery from the Normandy class ships to re-motorized the surviving Courbet class ships during the 20's, specially the Courbet which had 2 engine fires, and the Béarn Aircraft carrier. It wasn't a resounding success as the refitted battleships were limited to 19kt, but ITTL, they have more engine sets (without the Béarn), so they might be tempted to go full oil firing (against the mixed machinery of OTL). A more comprehensive refit is probably necessary to make the Courbet class anything more than overpriced training ships.

Question, if the French in the future wanted to go for a 16" gun could they buy British if relations were good enough? Not suggesting it's going to happen just wondering if it could under the treaty
I don't think that France will buy 16" guns in the UK.
First, because they don't need them right now. Until the expiration of the treaty, France will probably build only 340mm and 23,000 tons ships to maintain some sort of parity with the Italians. The quad turrets give them even an edge in gun caliber (340 against 305 mm). So they have roughly 10 years to develop a new gun.
Second, OTL they developed two heavy guns during the period. Those 330 mm and 380 mm weren't bad, so I don't think they will have that much trouble developing a 406 mm gun.
Third, even you get over the pride problem, if France have problems developing a 16" gun, the balance of payment will probably mean that they will try to buy a license for the UK's guns.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that France will buy 16" guns in the UK.
First, because they don't need them right now. Until the expiration of the treaty, France will probably build only 340mm and 23,000 tons ships to maintain some sort of parity with the Italians. The quad turrets give them even an edge in gun caliber (340 against 305 mm). So they have roughly 10 years to develop a new gun.
Second, OTL they developed two heavy guns during the period. Those 330 mm and 380 mm weren't bad, so I don't think they will have that much trouble developing a 406 mm gun.
Third, even you get over the pride problem, if France have problems developing a 16" gun, the balance of payment will probably mean that they will try to buy a license for the UK's guns.
I wasnt thinking that the French would actually buy guns from the UK, at least not for another decade or more depending on the world situation and even then its unlikely. It was more a hypothetical could they do so under the treaty. Basically could a signatory buy guns from another signatory for their ships and could they license production
 
France Founders
Holy!...

Just one thought, partly because I kind of have soft spot for OTL design but also because I can't see the French even with TTL changes and, actually, especially with them, avoiding the all forward layout, because the main rationals behind it was weight saving measure by putting the main magazines in one place and because that layout allow the concentration of fire, and both not dispersed through the ship , which given that is a LBC, I would think that there is better more reason for that here, I know that the other reason for the all-forward were the Deutschland but with an even closer competitor in the Vesuvius's, it still make some sense in my perspective.

Bud could you detail a bit on that please? I mean, why the French won't use it here?.
 
Last edited:
Holy!...

Just one thought, partly because I kind of have soft spot for OTL design but also because I can't see the French even with TTL changes and, actually, especially with them, avoiding the all forward layout, because the main rationals behind it was weight saving measure by putting the main magazines in one place and because that layout allow the concentration of fire, and both not dispersed through the ship , which given that is a LBC, I would think that there is better more reason for that here, I know that the other reason for the all-forward were the Deutschland but with an even closer competitor in the Vesuvius's, it still make some sense in my perspective.

Bud could you detail a bit on that please? I mean, why the French won't use it here?.
Only thing I could think of is that something like OTL the French navy was looking at this design and that's why it's used now but I have no idea. You also have the Nelwoods which are a similar layout.
 
You know I was going to say the Etnas looked like they could have gone 1 turret forward and 2 aft to save on barbette weight but now the French have just gone with 2 quads
 
I wasnt thinking that the French would actually buy guns from the UK, at least not for another decade or more depending on the world situation and even then its unlikely. It was more a hypothetical could they do so under the treaty. Basically could a signatory buy guns from another signatory for their ships and could they license production
I think countries are authorized to sell components, guns, turbines, boilers, etc.; but they are not authorized to sell ships. I was suggesting earlier that the Japanese could sell components to the Russians. I expect they could transfer technology as well, via licensing, patent rights, or other transfers.
 

Stenz

Monthly Donor
I can't see the French even with TTL changes and, actually, especially with them, avoiding the all forward layout,

Bud could you detail a bit on that please? I mean, why the French won't use it here?.
This is only my guess and obviously the OP is arbiter on these kinds of things, but I would say the all forward was a weight saving measure on a ‘normal’ battleship. This is a (relatively) well balanced design on a smaller scale which, crucially, allows the French to build more units in the long run. Provided they can stick to a doctrine for more than 5 minutes and the Army doesn’t hoover up all the money, of course. This way they can build a unified line for the Mediterranean in the minimum time and have ships which could well cope elsewhere if the situation demands it.

I’ve always thought the French designs of OTL were flawed and this one seems a little better in most regards, so let’s see where the MN takes this one.
 
Guys, quick side note question and answer: how reliable were WWI vintage German engines?, at least when compared to the British.
Less and more, the RN had access to high quality Welsh anthracite coal and thus their ships were considerably more reliable in service than German ships which had to use lower quality, dirtier coal which clogged their furnaces and caused problems. That said the Germans knew before the war that they would be using worse coal and thus their systems were designed to be less "finicky" meaning they were probably structurally more reliable if they had been given equal quality fuel. But of course they weren't.
 
This is only my guess and obviously the OP is arbiter on these kinds of things, but I would say the all forward was a weight saving measure on a ‘normal’ battleship. This is a (relatively) well balanced design on a smaller scale which, crucially, allows the French to build more units in the long run. Provided they can stick to a doctrine for more than 5 minutes and the Army doesn’t hoover up all the money, of course. This way they can build a unified line for the Mediterranean in the minimum time and have ships which could well cope elsewhere if the situation demands it.

I’ve always thought the French designs of OTL were flawed and this one seems a little better in most regards, so let’s see where the MN takes this one.
The all forward layout is both a weight and cost saver. You get a shorter ship with less armoured length all of which means less steel so lower costs all things equal. The all forward layout isnt necessarily unbalanced either. It's only real weakness is that one lucky shot can take out all your guns but that is pretty unlikely. The ultimate way for the French to get a uniform battle line is to ensure the ships they build are as cheap as possible.
 
Less and more, the RN had access to high quality Welsh anthracite coal and thus their ships were considerably more reliable in service than German ships which had to use lower quality, dirtier coal which clogged their furnaces and caused problems. That said the Germans knew before the war that they would be using worse coal and thus their systems were designed to be less "finicky" meaning they were probably structurally more reliable if they had been given equal quality fuel. But of course they weren't.
Thanks pal, much clearer now.

The all forward layout is both a weight and cost saver. You get a shorter ship with less armoured length all of which means less steel so lower costs all things equal. The all forward layout isnt necessarily unbalanced either. It's only real weakness is that one lucky shot can take out all your guns but that is pretty unlikely. The ultimate way for the French to get a uniform battle line is to ensure the ships they build are as cheap as possible.
I agree, while certainly a lucky shot might done the main battery, which so far I really don't know if just jam the turrets or the guns too, that was because the French system work with a tandem mechanism that surely could have been avoided, otherwise I don't find any major flaw in the all-forward layout or the ships, armor apart of course.
 
Last edited:
I've been away from this thread too long. Not just one, but two sets of brand-new battlecruisers have sailed in since I last commented.
And they are very pretty ships too, as you'd expect from the French and Italians - thanks for the pictures. And am I the only one to think that the two countries may be using the same design bureau? I'd struggle to tell Lille and Etna apart at 20,000 yards, though there are some nice individual touches, like Lille having a cruiser stern and that separate conning(?) tower just forward of the main bridge structure.

As far as the stats go, I'm with the commentators that think that both countries have got rather a lot of ship for their 23,000 tons. Particularly the Italians. 3 turrets, 12" belt and 30+ knots? steamboy posted the OTL Italian design I'd referred to before and while that had 15" guns it was only 6 of them, 9.5" belt and 29 knots. (Mind you, looking at the OTL design again it had 5" decks and 12 rather than 4 100mm AA, so maybe it balances out). I suspect that the 12" belt is both short and shallow and the speeds quoted are possibly optimistic (particularly after adding another 1,000 tons of AA). The Lille is more what I'd expect to be possible , and even there the armour is thicker than I'd expect for a true BCL.

Quibbling apart, the ships make sense in context. Both France and Italy are stuck with ageing battlelines that compare poorly to the late-WW1 ships being fielded by the local minor powers and neither can afford a big construction program (even if it wasn't 6 years' Treaty allowance I doubt either could afford 2 36,000 tonners and relying on a single supership has obvious risks).

So, the "light battleship" exemption rears its head. And the French and Italians have done what i thought was the foolish thing and gone the fast-battleship route, rather than a slow BBL with full battleship armour or a true "faster than anything stronger" BCL. Except that maybe in the context of the Mediterranean powers it isn't a foolish move. Yes, Rodney, Hood or Kii would knock one of these ships to pieces, but they're not planning on fighting the British or Japanese. They'd be weak link in a British or American battle line, but they're solid enough to stand with the Courbets or Cavours in a fleet action (in fact, one of these could probably take a Courbet or Cavour one-on-one) and they can walk away from anything in the Med big enough to hurt then except for each other.

And quite unintentionally, they've rather thrown down the gauntlet to contemporary RN and USN designers. These things are pure murder on 1920s cruisers - many of which don't even have the speed to get away - and the only ships that can reliably chase one down are the glass cannons - Lexington, Furious and Repulse. Two or three can probably be handled, but if a potential opponent builds a dozen of them? And more generally, if 29 knots is the new normal, is the 23-25 knot battleline still viable? I suspect we'll see another look at Kii-style fast battleships or Rodney-style heavy battlecruisers even if they have to go over the 36,000-ton barrier.
 
They are only murder on the cruisers if the fast battleships have nothing else to chew on.

As noted above they are we suited to a minor navy that doesn't expect to face a major navy directly, but they don't make much economic sense to a major.
 
I doubt the next RN BB's will be Nelwood repeats. The Nelwoods being able to do 24+ is better than OTL certainly, but the next design will likely be for a fast BB, I personally would do a 26.5kt 9x16" ship with as much armor as can be put on while achieving the first two. A new BC in the vein of Rodney would also be a worthy investment. Light BB's to counter to French and Italian ships could also increase numbers of fast capital ships while allowing the first rate BC's to stay in the British Isles.
 
I've been away from this thread too long. Not just one, but two sets of brand-new battlecruisers have sailed in since I last commented.
And they are very pretty ships too, as you'd expect from the French and Italians - thanks for the pictures. And am I the only one to think that the two countries may be using the same design bureau? I'd struggle to tell Lille and Etna apart at 20,000 yards, though there are some nice individual touches, like Lille having a cruiser stern and that separate conning(?) tower just forward of the main bridge structure.

As far as the stats go, I'm with the commentators that think that both countries have got rather a lot of ship for their 23,000 tons. Particularly the Italians. 3 turrets, 12" belt and 30+ knots? steamboy posted the OTL Italian design I'd referred to before and while that had 15" guns it was only 6 of them, 9.5" belt and 29 knots. (Mind you, looking at the OTL design again it had 5" decks and 12 rather than 4 100mm AA, so maybe it balances out). I suspect that the 12" belt is both short and shallow and the speeds quoted are possibly optimistic (particularly after adding another 1,000 tons of AA). The Lille is more what I'd expect to be possible , and even there the armour is thicker than I'd expect for a true BCL.

Quibbling apart, the ships make sense in context. Both France and Italy are stuck with ageing battlelines that compare poorly to the late-WW1 ships being fielded by the local minor powers and neither can afford a big construction program (even if it wasn't 6 years' Treaty allowance I doubt either could afford 2 36,000 tonners and relying on a single supership has obvious risks).

So, the "light battleship" exemption rears its head. And the French and Italians have done what i thought was the foolish thing and gone the fast-battleship route, rather than a slow BBL with full battleship armour or a true "faster than anything stronger" BCL. Except that maybe in the context of the Mediterranean powers it isn't a foolish move. Yes, Rodney, Hood or Kii would knock one of these ships to pieces, but they're not planning on fighting the British or Japanese. They'd be weak link in a British or American battle line, but they're solid enough to stand with the Courbets or Cavours in a fleet action (in fact, one of these could probably take a Courbet or Cavour one-on-one) and they can walk away from anything in the Med big enough to hurt then except for each other.

And quite unintentionally, they've rather thrown down the gauntlet to contemporary RN and USN designers. These things are pure murder on 1920s cruisers - many of which don't even have the speed to get away - and the only ships that can reliably chase one down are the glass cannons - Lexington, Furious and Repulse. Two or three can probably be handled, but if a potential opponent builds a dozen of them? And more generally, if 29 knots is the new normal, is the 23-25 knot battleline still viable? I suspect we'll see another look at Kii-style fast battleships or Rodney-style heavy battlecruisers even if they have to go over the 36,000-ton barrier.
They are only murder on the cruisers if the fast battleships have nothing else to chew on.

As noted above they are we suited to a minor navy that doesn't expect to face a major navy directly, but they don't make much economic sense to a major.
I doubt the next RN BB's will be Nelwood repeats. The Nelwoods being able to do 24+ is better than OTL certainly, but the next design will likely be for a fast BB, I personally would do a 26.5kt 9x16" ship with as much armor as can be put on while achieving the first two. A new BC in the vein of Rodney would also be a worthy investment. Light BB's to counter to French and Italian ships could also increase numbers of fast capital ships while allowing the first rate BC's to stay in the British Isles.
Recounting some of my answers to the treaty posts, I had made the point that with the light capital ship clause in place, all the battlecruisers of WWI vintage, from Von der tan and the Big Cats on, but excluding the I's, had become essentially fast battleship of sorts, with limited fighting capacity that is, but still capable of stand their ground if needed, certainly not the british case of course, but we all know the true reasons and the unfortunate mix circumstances that led to the BOOMS at Jutland (not quite the case at Stavenger, but close) and it definitely finish the issue about how and how not to design a battlecruiser if you're thinking in using it on a fleet engagement, i.e. Not Fisher's way.

Funny enough, I have redefined my understanding of the battlecruisers for OTL and a bit for TTL, because now we can argue that nearly every British battlecruiser was actually (and they were anyway) either an upgraded armored cruiser (the I's) or an expensive overkill (again the Cats, except Tiger, there's a reason why she was the better of all of them), with no business going on fleet engagements, as opposed to the German way that stressed the expected fleet encounter with similars and bigger an expected fact not a remote possibility and consequently a necessity to armor the ships to a reasonable degree so they can better resist damage. Now I can't see the Dash to the South as nothing but the clash between the ultimate overkill of the period and the true cruiser of the battleline, to borrow the Russian designation.

Equally important is that the clause also reevaluates Fisher's idea of the big gun cruiser as he actually envisioned it, in a more limited scope (as it should have been anyway from the start), make possible by improve tech, which effectively sanction the ships build inside those restrictions as either modern versions of the armored cruiser or an improved, armor wise that is, variety of the I's, nearly the same but not quite. Which actually makes them, in theory, a better and cheaper option as the heavy scouts of the fleet for all the big powers than the currently expensive heavy battlecruisers that, as I said, are already akin to fast battleships but with limited capabilities, and given that even if an Iowa or Lion 1940 like ships (i.e. G3 and similars) were possible in the current period, even in their own moment they were still too expensive investments and one that only the USN could "reasonably" afford and just drive by necessity, which, again number wise, makes the battleship-battlecruiser dichotomy a better option in the short term in US and UK case, if correctly planned and not going with Fisheresque schemes, and LBB/LBC for everybody else, obviously part of my reasoning is done with hindsight but just to present the possibilities

PD: probably some conclusions here exposed are at least implicitly acknowledge by most of you but I wanted to bring it to be sure that we are thinking along similar lines.
 
Last edited:
And so the era of the fast battleship begins. With all these fast ships from Japan, Italy and France cropping up Britain has to respond. As soon as Britain goes fast America will need to as well.

The French have got themselves a nice ship as well.

Question, if the French inthe future wanted to go for a 16" gun could they buy British if relations were good enough? Not suggesting it's going to happen just wondering if it could under the treaty
We've certainly nearing the threshold at which the RN needs to respond, or will be by 1924/5.

Yes, the French could legally buy 16" guns, or licences to build them.
 
Just to recap, since the signing of the Treaty of Washington the following ship classes have been ordered:

UK: 2x Nelson class, 36k t battleships (improved OTL ships)
US: 2x Montana class, 36k t battleships (shrunk SoDaks)
Japan: 2x Kii class, 38k t armoured battlecruisers (ATL)
Italy: 2x Vesuvio class, 22.5k t fast BBL's (ATL)
France: 3x Lille class, 23k t fast BBL's (ATL)
Netherlands: ???

I wonder what the next update will be....
 
Top