XPost: sci.military.naval
From: c.chazot@wanadoo.fr
"Jeff Dixon" a écrit dans le message news:
b31be569.0409151716.1d255092@posting.google.com...
(snip)
>
> Why did the British and French ship designs differ so much? I realize
> the differences might be influenced by the purposes each navy was
> intended to serve, but, generally, why were there such differences?
>
> Thanks . . . Jeff
> Jeff Dixon
> jhd5@psu.edu
That's only my private point of view, but I think the main difference is the
place of the naval staff in the program teams. The British teams have always
been listening the sailors' point of view and wishes, whereas the French
ones have given the priority to the design engineers, from the very begining
of Colbert's navy, with or without hearing the sailors' ideas according to
periods, friendships and interests. Both practices have their assets and
liabilities. The British one tends to correct the defects of the previous
ships, produces seaworthy, sturdy and maintainable ships, but may lead to
some form of conservatism (with noticeable exceptions, e.g. Dreadnought,
Furious). The French one tends to emphasize the technological point of view
but often produce ships that require a considerable troubleshooting from the
navy (submarine Surcouf, artillery on the Mogador class DDs, and the
well-known story of the CDG being good examples). Periods where naval
officers had the hand on the program teams are the exception in France, not
the rule. Darlan was probably the last example.
I know that these few lines are somewhat manichean, by the way. The state of
art of the respective defense industries in combat systems and shipyard
capabilities obviously play a part that I have omitted.
Regards,
Christophe
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
