Republique (Battleship)

The full index of our ship stamp archive
Post Reply
john sefton
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:59 pm

Republique (Battleship)

Post by john sefton » Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:27 pm

This was a triple screw ship, with one funnel per boiler room unit. The arrangement of the funnels reveals the split layout below decks, with 2 engine rooms sandwiched between 2 blocks of boiler rooms, an arrangement that remained common in French capital ships through the dreadnought era. It was also adopted by the Italian navy and used in certain Russian ships.
Following decades of under-sized and bizarrely proportioned battleships with inherent stability problems, French designers analyzed their failures and made changes to address them. Under the energetic leadership of Chief Constructor Louis-Émile Bertin, the Marine Nationale threw out the ineffective doctrines that had led to those preposterous behemoths of the Nineties.
Finally in 1901, the Admiralty gave Bertin the go-ahead to produce an exemplar of his own ideas. The first flowering of this effort was the République class: République and her identical twin Patrie.
With their clean lines, evident seaworthiness, and handsome proportions, these ships marked a quantum leap over previous French designs. Greatly decreased tumble-home improved stability and hull performance. Krupp cemented (KC) armor allowed more widespread protection without increased weight -- and as a masterful exegesis of Bertin's ideas on armoring, this armor scheme was widely admired at the time. An efficient triple-screw steam plant delivered a reliable 19 kts; and these ships introduced greatly improved watertight subdivision over what had been common in the French navy. The ships carried all the main guns and most of their secondary ones in twin turrets, increasing their firepower and rationalizing the gunnery layout.

With 14,600-ton size and 19-kt. speed, the Républiques were fully competitive with the Majestics and their various retreads whch had swelled the British fleet since 1895. The wider hulls gave greater speed and stability; and they were designed with a considerable improvement in armored protection over earlier French battleships. Their strength was built around a burly armored carapace 11" thick at its maximum, with the greater height used to bring the armored decks up by one level (as in British capital ships of the period). The armor had a "web panel" system installed backing up the plate where it was mounted to the hull. As for the guns, the adoption of twin mountings doubled the ships' 12" firepower and eliminated the cumbersome system of mixed calibre main guns common in France's existing battle fleet. Instead of the one-offs and twins produced through 1901 for France, the MNF charged ahead with confidence and launched (with the succeeding Liberté class) six virtually identical ships.
Specifications:
Dimensions: 439' x 79'7" x 27'6". Displacement: 14,600 tons. Armament: (4) 12"/45 cal., (18) 6.4"/45 (6x2, 6x1), (26) 3-pdr, and (2) 1-pdr guns; (5) 17.7" torpedo tubes (2 submerged and 3 above water). Height of guns above water: bow turret, 30 ft; after turret, 22.5 ft; secondary turrets, 29 ft. Armor: Krupp Cemented (KC) type throughout. 11"/7" belt, 10"/5" lower deck side, 13" turrets, 9" turret bases, 6" small turrets and casemates, 13" conn, 2.75" deck. Double armored deck/splinter deck with cellular layer between. Fuel capacity: 900 tons normal; 1,850 tons maximum. Propulsion: 22 coal-fired boilers (Niclausse and Belleville), (3) inverted vertical triple expansion steam engines developing 17,500 HP, shafted to triple screw. Maximum speed: 19 kts. Crew: 770. Initial cost: equivalent to £1.42M at 1903 valuation.

http://www.cityofart.net/bship/republique.html
Attachments
Republique.jpg
Republique.jpg

aukepalmhof
Posts: 7771
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 1:28 am

Re: Republique (Battleship)

Post by aukepalmhof » Fri May 25, 2018 9:19 pm

Papua New Guinea 2014 K8 sg?, scott?

http://www.shipstamps.co.uk/forum/viewt ... 12&t=16298
Attachments
2014 french battleship.jpg

Post Reply