Talk:Normandie-class battleship

Unusual?

Are you sure that the hybrid steam-turbine/triple-expansion engine thing was really "unusual"? I've heard of that being used on a number of ships, notably the Titanic (in that case, the turbine ran off the exhaust steam from the reciprocating engines, which were the main engines). Perhaps it's unusual for a combat ship, but I don't think it's by any means "unusual" as far as engine layouts in general go. It's simply a way to give good low-speed cruising (where turbines suffer from poor efficiency), while giving you a reserve of power from a high speed turbine for dashes when the rare occasion calls for maximum speed at the cost of high fuel consumption..45Colt 02:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's unusual for warships - no other contemporary capital ship design used a hybrid system. Parsecboy (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Image from Russian article

Based on scetch in Jordan, John. Dumas, Robert. French Battleships 1922-1956. — Barnsley, Yorkshire: Seaforth Publishing, 2009. — 224 p. — ISBN 978-1848320345 & original draw of Langedok from french arhiv

Normandie-class battleship

--Maxrossomachin (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, I've replaced the old Brassey's linedrawing with this one. Parsecboy (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

There are some more pics. We are working on Russian good article. Check the Commons category. --Maxrossomachin (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Citation bot denied access

I've disabled citation bot until I find out why publisher data is being removed from one journal citation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Gallica

@Parsecboy: Are any of the images found in this Gallica search of use to this article? https://gallica.bnf.fr/services/engine/search/sru?operation=searchRetrieve&version=1.2&startRecord=0&maximumRecords=15&page=1&query=%28gallica%20all%20%22Normandie%22%29&filter=dc.type%20all%20%22image%22%20and%20century%20all%20%2220%22 Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.7% of all FPs} 21:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: In particular, note the following: Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.7% of all FPs} 21:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9045907z/f1.item.r=Normandie.zoom (on the dark side, but a curves tweak will help with that)
• https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b90459321.r=Normandie?rk=1266100;4 (ditto)
• https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9047157q.r=Normandie?rk=1416316;0 (somewhat ditto)
• https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b90471710.r=Normandie?rk=1437775;2
• https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b90458882.r=Normandie?rk=1480694;0 (ditto to first note)
• https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b90458882.r=Normandie?rk=1480694;0 (actual launch)
• https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9047227x.r=Normandie?rk=2038636;4
• https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9027388d.r=Normandie?rk=193134;0

Odd angles, but interesting:

• https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9036957w.r=Normandie?rk=364808;4
• https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9027383b.r=Normandie?rk=515024;0
• https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b90273855.r=Normandie?rk=171674;4
• https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b90369589.r=Normandie?rk=214593;2
• https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9036965f.r=Normandie?rk=321890;0

Note I only searched Normandie. Searching the other ships' names (with only 20th-century publication date and only images as results) may gain other useful images. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.7% of all FPs} 21:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam, but you have to be careful to avoid the passenger liner Normandie, which was a near-contempory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That sounds horribly annoying. I take it all of those are the passenger liner? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.7% of all FPs} 03:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

All the ones that I checked. But I'll do searches for the other ships of the class, which will have fewer false positives.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Harvard error

Note 3 has a Harvard error because it doesn't include the year. Is it citing Preston 1972 or Preston 2002? AmericanLemming (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. Parsecboy (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)