The class was a planned class of ironclad barbette ships of the French Navy in the 1880s. The class initially comprised two ships, and , though two additional vessels were considered. An initial design broke with previous French practices and adopted an arrangement more similar to contemporary British designs, including a main battery carried in armored gun turrets instead of open barbettes, and an armored citadel rather than a complete, waterline armor belt.
The design proved to be controversial, and a new French Minister of Marine suspended work on and , cancelled the other two ships, and ordered a new design based on the preceding . Confusion over the specific timeline of construction exists in the available sources, but by January 1886, yet another Minister of Marine, Théophile Aube, cancelled both ships in favor of the doctrine he supported. Some sources have mistakenly conflated these two ships with the later pre-dreadnought battleships and , which were built a decade later, but they are distinct vessels.
Background
After the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871, the French Navy embarked on a construction program to strengthen the fleet in 1872 and to replace older vessels that had been built in the 1860s. By the early 1870s, the Italian (Royal Navy) had begun its own expansion program under the direction of Benedetto Brin, which included the construction of several very large ironclad warships of the and es, armed with 100-ton guns. The French initially viewed the ships as not worthy of concern, but by 1877, public pressure over the new Italian vessels prompted the Navy's (Board of Construction) to respond, beginning with the barbette ship and following with six vessels carrying 100-ton guns of French design. The first of these were the two s, which carried their guns in open barbettes, all on the centerline, with one forward and two aft.
By the early 1880s, the very large guns had fallen out of favor in the French Navy, so the remaining four ships, to be laid down beginning in 1880, were redesigned with smaller but equally powerful weapons. These became the , which was to have comprised four ships but ultimately included only three. The first vessel that was laid down, , had to be reworked after it was realized that the ship was too small for the intended displacement. The remaining three ships, which had not yet been laid down, could be enlarged to the necessary dimensions. All four ships arranged their main battery in a lozenge pattern with one forward, one aft, and a wing mount on either side amidships to maximize end-on fire (which was emphasized by those who favored ramming attacks).
At the same time, developments with quick-firing guns rendered the generation of French capital ships designed in the 1870s and early 1880s dangerously vulnerable to damage above the waterline. These ships used shallow waterline belt armor to protect their sides, but most of their hulls were unprotected by armor altogether. Many navies began to incorporate thin side protection above the belt to deal with the threat. Further complicating matters were the developments of self-propelled torpedoes and small, fast torpedo boats that posed an existential threat to the battleship-dominated fleets of the European navies.
First proposal
The fleet program of 1880 projected a total of six new ironclad battleships; the first four were to be the three s and . The remaining pair of vessels was due to begin construction in 1882; they were submitted as part of the budget for that year in January 1881. The government ordered the two new ships on 25 November, to have been named and , but by March 1882, had decided to delay them until the 1883 fiscal year. Design work on the new class began on 10 March, when Bernard Jauréguiberry, the French Minister of Marine, requested proposals for the ships. The naval engineer Louis de Bussy submitted his plan on 6 May, which carried its main battery of four guns in a pair of gun turrets arranged en echelon amidships. It also dispensed with the complete waterline belt armor used in previous French designs and adopted the shorter but stronger armored citadel system; both aspects of the design were stark departures from French ships and more closely resembled the British ironclad . In addition, de Bussy chose a three-shaft arrangement for the propulsion system, as a single screw propeller was insufficient for large warships and previous vessels with two screws were found to steer badly.
The considered de Bussy's proposal from 27 to 30 May 1882, and the armor layout was quickly agreed upon, but the use of enclosed, armored gun turrets proved to be more controversial. De Bussy noted that open barbettes could be used instead, but cautioned against it, as he viewed these unprotected mountings to be far too vulnerable and he discounted the perceived benefit of improved visibility for the gun crews. The issue was ultimately settled by a tie-breaking vote from Jauréguiberry on 29 July in favor of the armored turrets. Soon thereafter, Jauréguiberry decided to begin construction of the ships, which he formally ordered on 8 August. Over the following months, de Bussy prepared a series of more detailed plans, beginning with the hull lines on 6 September, followed by other details in November and December.
Characteristics of de Bussy's design The first design called for a ship that was long at the waterline, with a beam of and an average draft of (which increased to its maximum of at the stern). Displacement was set at . Each vessel would have been fitted with a pair of heavy military masts, and no sailing rig. The ship would have had a crew of 500 officers and enlisted men.
A trio of vertical triple-expansion steam engines provided propulsion, with steam supplied by twelve coal-fired fire-tube boilers. The boilers were divided into four boiler rooms and were vented through a pair of funnels. The propulsion system was rated to produce for a top speed of , which was sufficient to match the fast, but lightly protected, Italian ironclads. and would have carried of coal, allowing them to steam for an estimated at a speed of .
The main battery consisted of the four 340 mm guns in two twin turrets. The en echelon arrangement allowed both turrets to fire directly ahead or astern, and they could be trained across the decks to permit all four guns to be fired to either broadside over limited arcs. A secondary battery of eight guns was to be installed, four of which were in twin barbette mounts, both on the centerline at either ends of the ship. Of these weapons, six could fire to either broadside, while four could be trained ahead or astern. Close-range defense against torpedo boats was provided by an unknown number of Hotchkiss revolver cannon, of which eight would have been carried in fighting tops on the masts. Additional such guns would have been distributed along the superstructure. The armament suite was rounded out with a pair of torpedo tubes that would have been mounted in the hull abreast the main battery turrets, one per side.
The ships would have been protected with either steel or compound armor, depending on the contractor that would have been selected for the ships. Their waterline belt armor would have been thick, with curved, transverse bulkheads of the same thickness connecting both ends. The citadel would have been in length, nearly half the length of the ship. The side armor extended from above the waterline to below. This was reinforced by a pair of armor decks. The first connected to the bottom of the citadel; it was thick under the citadel, and increased to at either end. The upper deck was thick at the top of the citadel, but decreased significantly to at the bow and stern. Side armor above the waterline at either end amounted to . Both ends of the ship would have been highly subdivided into watertight compartments to contain flooding in the event of battle damage, and they would have been filled with some of coal for additional resistance to incoming projectiles. The ships' main battery turrets were to receive of armor on their sides and bases.
Second proposal
The decision to revise the design originated with the decision to add a third vessel for the 1883 budget and a fourth for the 1884 year. A new naval minister, Charles Brun, disagreed with the turret ship concept and on 29 June 1883 he requested advice from the whether this fourth vessel should repeat de Bussy's design or be altered in some way. By that time, opinions in the board had shifted, and they recommended a complete waterline belt, in keeping with previous French practice. The ship was ultimately canceled due to budgetary limitations, and no effort was made to alter the class at that time. But already by September, Brun had been replaced by Vice Admiral Alexandre Peyron, who on the 18th suspended the contracts for all three ships and solicited input from the on whether to complete them as originally designed or to revise them to follow the pattern.
The responded on 23 October with a recommendation to adopt an improved design, which would be lengthened to improve hydrodynamic efficiency and a straight bow, rather than the sloped ram bow that was to cause problems for the s once they entered service. Like the earlier vessels, this new version mounted its four 340 mm guns in individual barbettes in a lozenge pattern. Four days later, Peyron asked Charles Ernest Huin, who had designed the s and , to refine the concept for the new ships. Huin completed the initial draft on 17 November, but further alterations were suggested and his revised plan was submitted on 22 January 1884. Yet more improvements were requested, including moving the wing barbettes to improve their fields of fire (and reduce their blast effects on the forward and rear guns). Huin's finalalized design was completed by 31 July.
Characteristics of Huin's design Huin's revised design lengthened the ships slightly, to long between perpendiculars and long overall. Their beam increased to and average draft grew to , up to at the stern. Displacement rose to . Their hulls would have been constructed with steel. The conning tower was placed amidships, astern of the funnel, which greatly hampered the view forward from the primary steering position. As a result, a smaller, temporary conning position was to be added during peacetime operations. They were to be equipped with a pair of light pole masts fitted with fighting tops. The ships' crew fell to 450 officers and enlisted men.
Huin's design reverted to a two-shaft arrangement, but the specific type of steam engine to have been used is unknown. The firm Indret was planned to supply the engines. Eight coal-fired boilers provided steam, and they would have been vented through a single large funnel placed forward of amidships. Expected top speed would have been . Coal storage amounted to , which was projected to provide a cruising radius of at a more economical speed of . To supplement the steam engines on longer voyages, the ships would have been equipped with a schooner sailing rig.
The ships' primary armament was to have consisted of four 340 mm M1881 guns, which were 28.5-caliber weapons; they were carried in individual mounts in the French lozenge arrangement. The guns fired high-explosive shells filled with melinite with a muzzle velocity of . These would have been supported by a secondary battery of seventeen guns in individual casemate mounts; one was to have been placed in the bow and the remainder distributed along the broadside. These likely would have been the 30-caliber M1881 version of the gun. Close-range defense against torpedo boats would have been provided by fourteen 37 mm Hotchkiss revolver cannon. Lastly, they would have been fitted with three torpedo tubes, one at the stern and one on each side, astern of the wing barbettes. They would have been placed above water, below the secondary battery. The M1880 torpedo would have been used.