# Talk:French battleship Liberté

if anyone wants to upload the PD illustration here's the link Madame Grinderche (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Another photo is available here. Parsecboy (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussing other explosions like the one that wrecked Liberté, the article states, "Six more men were killed aboard the cruiser Gloire a year later, on 10 September 1911." The linked article, however, makes no mention of such an explosion and indicates that vessel was scrapped in the early '20s. Is this article in error? Or does the other one need expansion on the issue? Drhoehl (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That article needs to be expanded - as you can see, the service history section of that page is very brief. I might get around to it one of these days. Parsecboy (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The "service history" section says Captain Louis Jaurès tried to organize damage control teams. In fact, he was on shore leave at the time.
It also says Jaurès did not hold a further sea-going command, citing the Dictionnaire des parlementaires francis [sic] de 1889 à 1940 (Jolly 1960). Jolly is not always accurate: he states that Jaurès was given command of the submarine Gymnote in 1886 when the correct date is 1892. He skips forward here: "... il fut acquitté par un conseil de guerre après la catastrophe de la Liberté. Contre-amiral en 1914, il commanda la division cuirassée des Dardanelles ...". According to this source (p.4) on 30 April 1912 Jaurès was given command of the battleship Démocratie.
The Démocratie and Liberté were sister ships, as were the Vérité and Justice, which should be stated somewhere. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It states "the forward 55 m" was completely destroyed, but the illustration clearly shows that the stern of the ship received the major damage. Note that the illustration shows the ship from astern. Chris the speller yack 17:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems it's the illustration that is wrong on basically all counts. Jordan and Caresse state: "...smoke was observed pouring from the forward starboard casemate...witnesses observed a conflagration which consumed the forward superstructure...From the foremast aft, the decks collapsed toward the stern of the ship and the two midship 194mm turrets were hurled over the after superstructures. The forward part of the ship was destroyed over a length of 55m; only part of the prow and forecastle were found. Only one of the bow 305mm guns belonging to the forward turret was found protruding from the muddy bottom." There's a photo of one of the 194mm turrets, the orientation of which doesn't match any of the guns in the illustration. Parsecboy (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
See the photos of the wreck here; one wonders if the darker coloring of the forward section of the hull is meant to indicate that it was destroyed. Parsecboy (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@Parsecboy:, given you seem intent of just reverting and delivering personal attacks, I'll try to explain here. The "darker coloring" is not showing that the forward section was destroyed, because 1, the idea that that entire section was destroyed doesn't line up with the numbers given in the article, it's the forward 2/3s of the ship yet the article says only the forward 55 metres was destroyed. Two-thirds of a 135.25 metre ship is not 55 metres, in fact 55 metres is under half of it. 2, according to every other source that isn't that diagram, the explosion occurred in the forward propellant magazine, the way the diagram is set up is acting as if it occurred in the rear propellant magazine. 3, similarly, any other sources show the wreckage bent in the opposite direction to how the diagram shows it. In all, the diagram is back to front, if you're willing to actually listen to an explanation better than I can give rather than just calling people names, you could look at 00:13:19 in the video here (note: I am NOT using Youtube as a source, this is purely because the video summarises the actual sources and explains my argument better than I can do myself).
Tl;dr: The diagram is back to front and regardless of which of us is correct I'd kindly request you stop with the personal attacks. --2001:8003:1C4D:BA00:32DD:7BEB:BE7B:F68 (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

A few things:
The diagram isn’t back to front. You (and Drach) are looking at it wrong. That’s evidenced by the fact that he shows the stern of the ship to ‘disprove’ the drawing. The drawing doesn’t indicate any damage to the stern.
Drach used to copy our articles directly into his videos back in the day, until I called him out for it enough.
As for your math, where have you accounted for the length amidships that collapsed but was not entirely destroyed?
The drawing is entirely consistent with extant photos, such as  File:Battleship Liberté1.png, which shows the deck peeled back over the midship turret visible in the bottom right corner.
As for the ‘personal attacks’, spare me. I called you a dingdong once, because you have been disrupting the article for several months now without a good reason (i.e., dingdong behavior). If the ‘ferocity’ of that clearly exasperated remark has somehow caused you harm, then I suggest you get out more. Parsecboy (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)