Why wasn't France part of the Dreadnought race?

Why wasn't France (or Italy, or Austria-Hungary, or Russia) part of the dreadnought armament race? Was it because France didn't have the available resources? Was there an issue with the government's decisions? Or did they just not have the will or reasoning? What about the other nations listed above? Why didn't they jump in as well?
 
From what I remember Italy and A-H were in a mini Dreadnought race of their own and Russia was planning on getting in, WWI interrupted that

France was behind and was still building pre dreadnoughts 5 years after HMS Dreadnought
 
They did, but not in a big way. The French built about 6 dreadnoughts, in rivalry with Italy, who built about the same. All of them were modernized in time for WWII. Even Austro-Hungary built 4 Teggethof dreadnoughts of an advanced design.

However they all strongly depended on their fleets of pre-dreadnoughts. Since they were competing against each other and not England and Germany it was acceptable.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Germany could afford a large Army and a Naval Arms race. France spent much more per capita on the military than Germany did. Also France had 3 years conscription compared to two for Germany. Basically a money issue.

IMO, without WW1, France would have tried to catchup on dreadnoughts after 1917, when the Russian modernization program was finished.
 
To add to what I started with, may I ask-what about Spain? Why couldn't they build any? If it was due to an economic situation, as I remember, what was the cause of said economic situation?
 
Spain ordered 3 España class small dreadnoughts, but the local yards required extensive British assistance to complete the ships, which was not obtainable after WWI broke out. In the event, the vessels were finished in the early 1920's.
Cost issues limited the Españas to 8x30,5cm guns and 18 knots, though so the economic situation obviously was a factor.
 
Last edited:
Spain ordered 3 España class small dreadnoughts, but the local yards required extensive British assistance to complete the ships, which was not obtainable after WWI broke out. In the event, the vessels were finished in the early 1920's.
Cost issues limited the Españas to 8x30,5cm guns and 18 knots, though so the economic situation obviously was a factor.

Why was the economic situation the way it was, though? Why was Spain so far behind economics-wise?
 
As Louis XIV mentioned the French did build a number of them. One of the major factors was that for several reasons the Marine Nationale was very much under the influence of the Jeune École naval theory which posited that torpedoes and torpedo boats could be used to counter other nations larger navies which had more battleships.
 
That's substantially another discussion, and a far deeper and ultimately more important one. The most obvious reasons for slower 19th century Spanish development though were nthe French occupation, guerrilla war, Peninsular war and subsequent civil wars. The moderate/constitutional faction that emerged victorious from the 1830's Carlist wars was dependent on British support. As a predominately rural country with a smallish middle class and limited primary education system, Spain focused on primary production and exports of natural resources, notably iron ore and mercury.
The entrenched system of corruption also played a role, where the 2 major political parties had an agreement to alternate in power, and elections were often decided by Caciques, political operatives who bought voters, stuffed ballot boxes,etc.
 
As Louis XIV mentioned the French did build a number of them. One of the major factors was that for several reasons the Marine Nationale was very much under the influence of the Jeune École naval theory which posited that torpedoes and torpedo boats could be used to counter other nations larger navies which had more battleships.

This was predominately during the late 19th century. The French were plagued with problems in manufacturing and inefficient shipyards which led to long construction times. On top of that the frequent changes in government lead to a revolving door arrangement with cabinet posts and naval policies being changed with each change of government. There were long term problems with financing that hampered things also.

A reason why the French were the first to seriously pursue the development of the quadruple turret was the greater expense of building larger slipways and outfitting yards, as the size of new dreadnoughts increased, and the length of time it would take to build these new facilities.
 

sharlin

Banned
David said all the points I was going to bring up. The French were very inefficient when it came to building ships. Their best pre-dreadnoughts the Dantons were laid down before the Dreadnought and finished considerably later than she was, obsolete before they even hit the water.

When they did build Dreadnoughts they showed a good first touch, the Courbet's were well thought out ships but again behind the curve. When they were hitting the water the RN had already moved onto the 13.5 inch gun the USN onto its 14 inch rifles and the RN was planning the 15 inch.

The follow up Bretagne class was just a modified Courbet with a different turret layout and bigger guns, but when they were built they were again outclassed by other nations warships.
 
France wasn't much later than Japan, the main difference being that with the outbreak of WW1 France cancelled everything that was not almost completed, whilst Japan continued building theirs.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
France actually did follow in the Dreadnought race, as good as possible, as her own industrial capabilities were much less advanced, than the ones in the UK and Germany especially. France was a bit hampered by the less efficient shipyards and her generally smaller capital ship's as these had to make use of existing infrastructure, preventing the construction of completely new, much larger ships, than the ones around the 20,000 ton size. Therefore and because of the less advanced status of the yards, ships took quite a while to get completed and therefore could not numerically rival the British.

France was also hampered that she had just started the six ship strong Danton type semi Dreadnought, which was the first capital ship in France to be equipped with turbines, but still featured a mixed calliber armament. These ships had been ordered in 1907 and took untill 1912 to be completed, by which time the superdreadnought type was afloat already. The 1908 order for the Courbet class dreadnought too was not in service untill the start of 1914, so France always lagged behind the competition of the Naval superpowers in both UK and Germany and to a lesser sense the USA and Japan as well. (who were not European/ Mediteranean powers, so not mentioned by France at all.)
 
I did see a reference somewhere that there had been some consideration of modifying the Dantons to dreadnoughts by replacing her secondary armament of 12 9.4in guns in twin turrets with six 12in guns in single turrets. That would have given them a broadside of seven 12in guns.
 
As Louis XIV mentioned the French did build a number of them. One of the major factors was that for several reasons the Marine Nationale was very much under the influence of the Jeune École naval theory which posited that torpedoes and torpedo boats could be used to counter other nations larger navies which had more battleships.


I had been really hoping it would be something like that. High-capability torpedo-boats and submarines make dreadnaughts into underwater paperweights.

Then you take the money and metal saved by doing so and tap someone like DeGaulle to put together mobile armor.

(And, yes, of course, fighter planes to shoot bombers out of the sky.)
 

sharlin

Banned
I did see a reference somewhere that there had been some consideration of modifying the Dantons to dreadnoughts by replacing her secondary armament of 12 9.4in guns in twin turrets with six 12in guns in single turrets. That would have given them a broadside of seven 12in guns.

Thats just me David, something that will crop up in the Franco-Japanese War storyline i'm working on which is a bit delayed due to volume of work at work.
 
Maybe it is all for the best. Just browsed through some of their designs. World was cluttered by many ugly ships, but few were as ugly as French designs. Why didn't they use their sense of beauty for battleships, as they did for other stuff.

OT What is it about their fascination with Nelson class postwar?
 
Thats just me David, something that will crop up in the Franco-Japanese War storyline i'm working on which is a bit delayed due to volume of work at work.

No, Sharlin, the reference I saw was actually printed in a booklet titled The Semi-Dreadnoughts or Demi-Dreadnoughts. I can't find it right now in my library. What is unfortunate is that there is nothing in English (that I'm aware about) about the design processes that the French went thru building their predreadnoughts. John Jordan has an excellent book on French Warships of WWII, but there is nothing about earlier warships.
 
Maybe it is all for the best. Just browsed through some of their designs. World was cluttered by many ugly ships, but few were as ugly as French designs. Why didn't they use their sense of beauty for battleships, as they did for other stuff.

OT What is it about their fascination with Nelson class postwar?

The main problem for the 1920s and 1930s and what forces navies to religiously follow 'form follow function' rather than the other way around, is the tonnage limitations of the Washington Naval Treaty.
 
Top