Talk:French Navy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the French Navy article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

The official Navy site provides information and photos free for Internet use. All ships or classes of ships should be documented. David.Monniaux 19:22, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is also http://www.netmarine.net wh0 have generously given their authorisation to use some of their photographs under the GFDL (see here). Rama 23:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Naming conventions

[edit] Prefix

The French Navy does not use prefixes for its ships (like the Royal Navy does, "HMS Kent" for instance). However, since it makes it easier to understand the nationality of ships, I suggest we put the prefix FS ("French Ship"), which is already widely used informally internationally.

Personally, I'd like something less clunky than [[French ship Quelquechose|French ship ''Quelquechose'']], but if there isn't any French practice we can point to for justification...
—wwoods 08:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Articles

Articles (le, la, les) are not part of the name of the ship. "French submarine Triomphant", "Triomphant type" (not "Le Triomphant type"; yes, I know that lots of people write it like that, including the DCN itself (it probably gave up educating people), but it's not less wrong. What would you say of French people systematically saying "USS The Forrestal" ?).

Caution, in some cases, what smight look like an article can be a part of the part (La Motte-Picquet). Here, the La is not an article. In doubt, ask me...


Just because it doesn't translate well to English doesn't mean it's not used. L'anglais translates literally as "the english (language)". That's just the way the French language works.--24.77.35.110 8 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)

I am rather well aware of how French language works, thank you... Rama 8 July 2005 06:09 (UTC)

As noted earlier, the French did not have a designation like HMS. For the 17th and 18th century, when French and English ships frequently carried the same name, it is helpful to keep the article, even if they are not officially part of the name of the ship. The short article is more efficient than having to repeatedly write "the French ship of the line Terrible," which gets tiresome quickly. Check out William Cormack's authoritative work Revolution and Political Conflict in the French Navy 1789-1794 published by Cambridge University Press. --Ken Johnson 15:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Why not say "French ship Téméraire" ? Just putting Téméraire to mean HMS Téméraire would still be ambiguous with your solution. I don't think that this solution has many advantages, and it completely contradicts the natural flow of the language. Also, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships), where the question is discussed. Rama 16:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
That's also true for the reverse: what does "the Le Swiftsure" sounds like, really ? Rama 16:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, as far as I have been able to find, there are no set standard for translating ship names from French to English. Even if a modern standard were set, it might not make sense to apply it to the 18th century. This is a long standing problem for what I can see. For example, William James, in his Naval History of Great Britain, did not write "HMS" or "Le/La" but instead used italics to differentiate. All ships names were bolded, while French ship names were italicized. --Ken Johnson 17:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I must admit that these things which ressort to bold fonts or twisting of a language leave me rather dubious. I haven't yet found any problem with writing ships "normally" (in italics) and adding an explicit comment whenever ambiguous (" the English Téméraire engaged the French Swiftsure"); that respects everybody's language and typography does not suffer...
But I understand the problem; Ah ! The joys of tradition, ship prefixes, and recomissioning in different navies ! Yesterday I had to draft a French ancien régime Royal Navy flag (for the first Belle-Poule , so I daresay we also have out own particularities :D Rama 17:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

A friend of mine has a sister-in-law who is a professional translator. She said that in both French and Spanish, the proper usage is to use the original name (i.e. L'Atalante) throughout. If a designator such at “HMS” or “USS” does not appear before the name, you may use something along the lines of “the vessel, L'Atalante. .…) initially, and thereafter just the name L'Atalante without the English article (i.e. “The L'Atalante….” would be incorrect.) She is very good in both Spanish and French, so unless somebody from l’Academie challenges you, you are probably on strong ground. --Ken Johnson 04:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

No, this is not the original name: the original name is Atalante; you will indeed say "L' Atalante appareille...", but not "L'Atalante appareille". In some cases, the article is part of the name, and then italicised as well "Le Redoutable appareille" (some ships named Redoutable have the article in their name, I think the submarines, and the ship of the line does not; that's still not clear).
The article comes from an implicit "le vaisseau Atalante", which you can witness with English names: "le Victory" (because "le vaisseau de ligne Victory"), but "La Bounty" (because "la frégate Bounty").
Incidentally, that's in the link I mentionned originally. Rama 12:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nobility particles

In French, the nobility particle is "de" ("duc de Guise"), with a small "d". Now, nobility particles are not said when just refering to a person's name (without the first name or the title): "Richelieu", but "Cardinal de Richelieu".

Caution, some names might have a "De" inside which in not' a particle, but part of the name. Here the "D" is in capital.

Now, there are exceptions too: "De Gaulle" is not a particle (proof ? easy: "General de Gaulle"; "Charles de Gaulle"; "de Gaulle". Noone will ever say just "Gaulle" (cf "Richelieu")). For "de Gaulle", it is mainly the usage which has more or less enforced the "de" over the "De", which would be more correct (and also more republican...).

Now, for some cases, the particle will show in the ship's name with a capital (De Grasse, D'Entrecasteaux); in some other cases, the small caracter is tolerated in the middle of the name (De Gaulle, but Charles de Gaulle). There again, if you want my idea about the subject, you can ask me.



NOTA :

Well... It's a bit more complicate. The usage today maintains the particle before a monosyllabic name (de Grasse, de Gaulle), or before a name begining by a vowell (d'Artagnan). Before any other name the particle must vanish (Villepin and not de Villepin, etc.)

Why is it so ? Long time ago, the particle wasn't prononced before any name (the writer Agrippa d'Aubigné called himself "Aubigné", and not "d'Aubigné" as today). Then step by step (probably because of its prestige and of the bad taste of much bourgeois gentilshommes) the particle appeared more and more, for exemple before vowells (like "d'Alembert" in the 18th century). After the Revolution (restauration of the monarchy) it was commonly used, and the not noble Honoré de Balzac was signing only "de Balzac", to emphasize his fake nobility.

This evolution makes it a bit complicate, and some people today still say "de Villepin" instead of "Villepin", but educated people will tell you the correct way.

"De Gaulle" contains no particle. Rama 14:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


(Etymologically not, as it may come from the flemish "De Waulle", the wall, "De" signifying simply "the" in Flemish. But this "De" it has been assimilated very early with a particle : the first historical de Gaulle, Richard de Gaulle, date back to 1210 and he was noble. In the 17th century, Charle's ancestors were a good exemple of "noblesse de robe" : Antoine and Jean-Baptiste de Gaulle were magistrates. Charles de Gaulle, as any of his ancestors, is never written with a capital "D" (the only exception is when you write de Gaulle after "de", to avoid visual repetition, for ex. : "La politique de De Gaulle").

Being a particule is not limited to being written lowercase.
Take a real particle, like for Armand du Plessis, duc de Richelieu ; he is called simply "Richelieu". When a title is given, the particle appears ("cardinal de Richalieu").
On the opposite, saying "Gaulle" to refer to General De Gaulle is wrong. Written upper- or lowercase, this "De" is no particle. Rama 12:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Aaargh...! One last time and I stop : De Gaulle is etymologically not a noble name, yet it has been assimilated early with one (as the family acquired a noble status), and therefore it behave exactly as any other French monosyllabic noble name. It's because of this monosyllabic quality that its particle is elided when the name is pronounced alone - just as "de Grasse", "de Lattre" or "de Thou", all ancient, pure and venerable French noble names, but monosyllabic, so pronounced and written with their "de" when alone (the two only exceptions with that kind of names being "Sade" and "Retz", wich in a similar case are never said with their particle).

So the fact that you use differently the particle before "Richelieu" and "de Gaulle" is due to the length of noble name considered, and has nothing to do with being noble or not.

Click here if you want to know everything about de Gaulle's nobility (Fondation de Gaulle's website, in French)

Click here if you want to know everything about usage of French noble particles (in French)

Excellent, thanks ! Rama 08:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Now for something simple ! :)

I sugest that we add the dates of commissioning and de-commissioning (or sinking, disapearing, whatever...) after the name of ships which are no longer in service in the French Navy, much like it's done for the Royal Navy already on Wikipedia.

Thusly, FS Surcouf (1927-1942) refers to the Second World War submarine, and FS Surcouf refers to the ontemporary stealth frigate.

I hope this helps avoid all the "French Cruiser Jeanne d'Arc", "French_Richelieu_(1940)", and other cahotic looking things I have seen in the past :) If someone has suggestions, remarks, or anything, tell me ! Cheers and happy editing ! Rama 06:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If French ships don't have US-style hull numbers, or RN-style pennant numbers, then dates will do, but is there any need for two dates? As long as there aren't multiple ships in service simultaneously, one--equivalent to a birth-year--ought to do. [[FS Surcouf|FS ''Surcouf'']] should be the {{disambiguation}} page, since that's what people will link to when they don't know the precise ID of the ship they mean.
By the way, I'm not familiar with the <gallery>..</gallery> tags, but they make a mess in my browser. How about a Wiki-ized table:
{| 
| image1
| image2
|-
| image3
| image4
|}
—wwoods 08:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Apparently the French Navy does have ship numbers, nowadays at least. E.g. Surcouf is F711, which makes it simple: [[Surcouf (F711)|''Surcouf'']] (F711).
—wwoods 10:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there are hull numbers (and they use the international categorisation; some "frigates" features "D"-Destroyer hull numbers, though the term "destroyer" is not used in the French Navy).
For the dates, my idea is that the dates are more useful than the hull number; but it can indeed be an alternative for recent ships (not for pre-WWII, of course). Rama 11:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions

There are already naming conventions for ships. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). If you think they are wrong, or you think French ships need to be named in a different way, please raise the issue and discuss on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships). Gdr 11:30, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of the NATO prefix "FS" which isn't used in France (especially for ships which pre-date NATO), but on the other hand there are small issues with the policy of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships):
  • Some navies have specific categories of ships; for instance, the French navy uses the word "frigate" for destroyer-size ships (whose hull number has a "D"). This might make the name of articles difficult to predict (for instance, someone looking for the destroyer Forbin might not find it in "List of naval French ships" because it is categorised as a frigate)
  • with namings like "French frigate Surcouf" and "French submarine Surcouf", it is impossible to tell whether a ship is in commission or not anymore, which I think would plead in favour of puting a date (possibly the date of commissioning) in the title.
I will post these questions on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) as well (I though that "Wikiproject:Ship" was the right place to do so).Rama 12:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships was a fine place, but the naming conventions have their own page. Gdr 13:23, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

[edit] Avisos????

Can some sone who has some level fluency in French beyond student say what this type of vessel is? It looks like it means "Corvette", but I don't really know. --Mtnerd 05:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it is smaller than a corvette, yet bigger than a patrol ship. Typical role is green water anti-submarine warfare. Originally, it was small ships carrying orders to fleets (in the 1780s). I'll draft a specific page if it is too confusing for other users. Rama 05:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Good. Would Offshore Patrol Vessel be a better term? It's a term that needs explanation.--Mtnerd 16:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I created an aviso article, feel free to edit it the way you see fit. Since you might not be born with the concept, your way to explain it is probably better than mine, for whom "aviso" is a straightforward "ecological niche" of warships. Rama 18:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
The French "Aviso" could really be classed as either a corvette or patrol vessel. The D'Estienne d'Orves class is about the same size as both types of vessel (see River class patrol vessel and Visby class corvette), but its armament is more similar to that of a corvette. SoLando 15:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's the point, this niche is between corvette and patrol vessel, one good reason to use the original taxinomy in my opinion. Rama 15:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

According to Dictionnaire de Marine a voiles by Bonnefoux and Paris, Aviso is translated as "advice boat" or as Rama says in his article "dispatch boat". There are also a "corvette-aviso" which is translated as a "light sloop of war, packet sloop of war". In addition, "brig-aviso" is a "light brig, packet". --Ken Johnson 15:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Out of sheer curiosity, what is "packet" here ? Rama 15:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


A packet is a passenger boat usually carrying mail and cargo. --Ken Johnson 01:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] French-British Navy

Isn't the French Navy now larger (in all factors that determine a navy's size) than the Royal Navy?

I also read that the FN was the larger one (on the BBC's website). I tried to count the number of vessels both navys have in active service. The RN has 101 vessels in the surface and submarine fleet and 76 in the auxiliary services. The French navy consists of 84 vessels in the surface and submarine fleet and 58 in the auxiliary services. To sum up: RN 177 ships, FN 142. I'm not sure if the numbers for the french auxiliary forces are correct, because there a no complete lists on the net.
It's hard to say which navy is more capable, because the profiles are very different. While the RN has got many heavy surface combatants (Destroyers, Frigates), the FN mainly consists of lighter vessels (although some are called frigates, they correspond with corvettes). There are no main differences in the amphibious capabilities. What can be said is, that the RN fulfills much more deployments around the globe than the FN.
All in all I think the differences are not that big, but the RN is a little bit ahead of the FN, in numbers and capabilities. It will be interesting to compare both navies in about 10 years, when all the new warships (Horizon, Type 45, CVF, Astute, etc.) will be in service. Albion05 28 June 2005 22:35 (UTC)
As I just recognised in the royal navy article, SoLando quoted http://www.european-defence.co.uk which says the the RN has about 195 and the FN about 128 vessels. Maybe I counted wrong. Albion05 28 June 2005 22:43 (UTC)
I thought my ears were burning on 28 June :-D That 'site was the only source I could find with ship figures; however, i'm not sure how recent their figures are :-(. It would be better if someone could get an answer from the Royal Navy and Marine Nationale. Take care SoLando 14:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The RN has some very advanced ships, such as the type 45 destroyers, which are slightly ahead of the french navy. The french do employ more people and the Charles De Gualle (I hope thats how you spell it) is way beyond the curent british carriers. The french navy has a lower gross tonnage (not quite sure if that shows anyting) than the RN and the RN has way more ships.

The Type 45 are not commissioned yet. When they are commissioned, they will be comparable to the Chevalier Paul and Forbin, of the Horizon class frigate. Telling which one is "best" is anyone's guess. Rama 21:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Marine Nationale" vs "la Marine Nationale"

Same question as above: in French the article ("le"/"la") is not part of the word. I don't know why so many people tend to have the impression that it is and put "le" and "la" everywhere (perhaps some way the French is taught to foreigners ?); there is no more reason for stating "La Marine Nationale" than there would be to call the article "The French Navy" (and for the record, French is my mother tongue). Rama 16:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] French Navy is largest in terms of personnel

It seems odd that this factoid is mentioned. Presumably this is mentioned to give a handle to the reader as to the capability of the French Navy vis-a-vis other navies. I cannot see any other valid reason for stating personnel in such a manner (i.e. listing this fact up front in the article, as opposed to a mere listing of the fact as to personnel establishment later on in the article with lesser relevance).

So the assumption is that personnel is a key indicator as to the capability of the French Navy - that is, it is assumed that the additions of the collective of editors who have been to these pages before me have thought that personnel is a key indicator. I disagree....navies are surely to be measured as to capability in other terms. There is no accurate measure of capability - but other factors such as a balance of forces (see blue water navy), the total gross tonnage (which is listed in this article) and the firepower available are valid indicators.

It has often been said that navies and air forces man equipment whilst armies equip men. Therefore to list the number of available infantrymen in an army is an indicator of effectiveness, when it comes to navies, the personnel establishment number tells me, as a reader, nothing.

Other factors come into play - e.g. how old is the equipment of this navy that must be manned - first generation aircraft carriers, for example, were grossly overmanned compared to modern designs, due to advanced in automation technologies. Some countries include a large number of ancillary staff on their establishment whilst other navies would not - for example, cooks at Royal Australian Navy bases are civilian contractors, whilst (I imagine) that French Navy shore establishment cooks are service personnel. The most glaring "boost" to the French Navy numbers that additionally gives doubt to the relevance of this measure of capability is the fact that the fire brigade of Marseilles are included on the French Navy establishment.

I vote for the removal of this misleading factoid of the French Navy - or else it needs quantifying.

The bottom line is that to quote personnel figures leads to images of over-manning, or a massaging of the figures to give a grandoise overall look of the size of the French Navy - albeit acheived at the expense of including bottle-washers, blanket stackers and (what would elsewhere in the world be) civilian fire-fighting personnel.

I rest my case. Anon.

I think there's something in what Anon says. Is there a need to state "we're the largest navy" with facts that are open to wide interpretations ? A better citation for the French navy in the articles opening paragraph would be to make no claim as to the relative size of their navy - after all, does it matter to anyone other than those with somewhat childish nationalistic editing instincts ? Anon has my vote for removal of this factoid (as he puts it).--Phillip Fung 04:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Removal agreed. My vote goes to remove this irrelevant note of one-upmanship.--Ordew 02:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This conversation is very old. You'll have to get some more people in here to discuss this before you want to remove that statement. On the statement itself, however, it is worthy because it describes one facet of why the French Navy is important, though not necessarily the "best" or "better than this or that."UberCryxic 14:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If people wish to list a fact as to the numbers of people in the French Navy, then that is a valid point, and can be listed, but it is not a key fact relating to the navy that warrants mention in the introductory paragraph. Currently the implication is that this fact is of significance via a vis the relative strengths and weaknesses of the navy, but this does not stand up to scrutiny. The 'oldness' of the debate does not negate any of it's content.--Ordew 15:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well actually, that does not appear to be the implication at all. It's just stating a significant fact about the French Navy.UberCryxic 16:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the 'figures' reference further down the page. I agree that it's a fact to be cited, but I also agree that the inference of "it's a key measurement" (inferred due to the facts place almost at the top of the article) should be toned down. Navies effectiveness are not measured in terms of the numbers of people they employ, in whatever capacity, but by what they can actually do. I hope my amendment resolves the issue. Comments welcome on this page, which I am watching. --Phillip Fung 04:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Since France still has consciption ( correct me if I am wrong ) that would explain why it would be potentially larger ( in terms of personel ) than, say the RN. You have to put the conscripts somewhere. How useful those extra bodies are after, say, twelve months of training is open to debate but not relevent to a wiki page. 145.253.108.22 09:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong take a look at Military of France under Manpower, conscription ended in 2001. Carl Logan 10:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing information on naval bases

This is a useful article, but it lacks information on naval bases. Could someone add some please? George955 18:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. Rama 09:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)