# Talk:Courbet-class battleship

to my knowledge, no french pre-dreadnought had this gun geometry, thus the statement that was abandoned seems a confusion with the german navy. pietro151.29.185.59 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

You are correct that the French never arranged their primary guns that way, but they were very fond of four wing turrets for the secondary armament which amounted to much the same thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
The hexagonal mixed armament was diffuse on the pre-dreadnought: the last US ships had 4/305+8/203, the italian Pisa and San Giorgio 4/254+8/190, the russian Pavel I had 4/305+8/203 (plus other 203 in battery), the russian Rurik II 4/254+8/203, the Radetzky 4/305+8/240 ... But this geometry was never used on the french vessels: the Danton had 12/240 in SIX wing turrets and all the former vessels had more than 4 wing turrets. If you mean that the french engineers reduced the importance of the wing turrets you are perfectly correct (indeed, the reduction is even more important than starting from the hexagonal geometry), but the statement that the previous vessels has the hexagonal geometry is not correct. pietro151.29.185.59 (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)