A battleship with high level of class and a battleship that exudes the sleek curves of a post-dread... and Akatsuki just casually walks up to them... THAT AINT HOW 'TA LADY, YA SILLY DESTROYER~

Interestingly, didn't Richelieu sail with Iowa at least a couple of times since she DID, after all, get US hax save the near-aimbot levels of GFCS?

You'd think her sisters would stop Akatsuki from making a fool of herself. Akatsuki might be the oldest but... well...

Wololo~

And here we go again Akatsuki going YOLO about LADY things...

Keough said:

And here we go again Akatsuki going YOLO about LADY things...

Actually, about religious things... and so "YOLO" that she's doing it in all katakana like an abyssal, to boot.

ezekill said:

A battleship with high level of class and a battleship that exudes the sleek curves of a post-dread... and Akatsuki just casually walks up to them... THAT AINT HOW 'TA LADY, YA SILLY DESTROYER~

Interestingly, didn't Richelieu sail with Iowa at least a couple of times since she DID, after all, get US hax save the near-aimbot levels of GFCS?

No, after her refit she was first designated for the Mediterranean, but then the Italian fleet surrendered and she wasn't need. She spent some time in England, but couldn't do much in the north sea due to a lack of fire control radar, she eventually got one and sailed as an escort for carriers a few times in early 1944, but by then the British had plenty of battleships at home and she wasn't really needed. There was thought to use her as part of the bombardment group at Normandy, but the US had only been able to secure production of 15 inch AP shells for her, not HE. So she was instead sent to the Indian ocean where barring a refit she remained until the end of the war.

She did however sail with Saratoga, she was part of the covering group for her and Illustrious during thes raid on the oil and port faclties in Indonesia in April and May 1944.

That said she was in close proximity to her once, Iowa was in her final stages of fitting out at the Brooklyn Navy Yard to be commissioned in February 1943, Richelieu arrived at the yard to begin her refit in January.

Tk3997 said:

No, after her refit she was first designated for the Mediterranean, but then the Italian fleet surrendered and she wasn't need. She spent some time in England, but couldn't do much in the north sea due to a lack of fire control radar, she eventually got one and sailed as an escort for carriers a few times in early 1944, but by then the British had plenty of battleships at home and she wasn't really needed. There was thought to use her as part of the bombardment group at Normandy, but the US had only been able to secure production of 15 inch AP shells for her, not HE. So she was instead sent to the Indian ocean where barring a refit she remained until the end of the war.

She did however sail with Saratoga, she was part of the covering group for her and Illustrious during thes raid on the oil and port faclties in Indonesia in April and May 1944.

That said she was in close proximity to her once, Iowa was in her final stages of fitting out at the Brooklyn Navy Yard to be commissioned in February 1943, Richelieu arrived at the yard to begin her refit in January.

Oh, so she was once rented to the US along with Illustrious? I guess it makes sense, because AFAIK the Americans were really short on BBs after the Pearl Harbor attack...
When I first heard a British carrier would be coming to Kancolle the first thing to come to mind was Illustrious. That made me expect some interaction between her and Saratoga but well, Ark Royal x Bismarck is fine too.

Come to think of it, why don't French ships seem to hate the British? I mean, the WW2 Marine Nationale had a really good reason to do so.

No word on how gorgeous Richelieu looks in her background rendition?

From the commentary, it looks like munmu-san is not a single person, but actually a duo like Yuuji&Kouji. And the pixiv profile states the gender as "female".
So... the writer is a (most likely male) retired military officer and the artist is a female?

WhiteCrow said:

Come to think of it, why don't French ships seem to hate the British? I mean, the WW2 Marine Nationale had a really good reason to do so.

Lets's say the French were not comfortable with Germans at their home, especially after their government's surrender. They disliked the Germans more than the British.

I...ah...is Akatsuki's greeting a reference to something?

WhiteCrow said:

From the commentary, it looks like munmu-san is not a single person, but actually a duo like Yuuji&Kouji. And the pixiv profile states the gender as "female".
So... the writer is a (most likely male) retired military officer and the artist is a female?

When did the author suggest anything about being a former officer?

Ghetsis said:

When did the author suggest anything about being a former officer?

Look at the commentary of post #2729745. Also, the commentary of post #2779280 says that the "pocket" things on Admiral's back in the preceding page are for setting up camouflage. The author mentions they know it from experience of the SDF days.
Though looking again, there's no indication that he was actually an officer. Maybe that was the impression I got from how he stated those things.

Then how about we throw caution to the wind and try using English as this juncture?

Because they'll be deaffounded from Akatsuki's command of English that, garnered from "Sesa*e Street", yes♪

Are these errors intentional, or genuine mistakes on your part, @Paracite?

Fixed

Tk3997 said:
That said she was in close proximity to her once, Iowa was in her final stages of fitting out at the Brooklyn Navy Yard to be commissioned in February 1943, Richelieu arrived at the yard to begin her refit in January.

There's also a picture of her post refit alongside USS New Jersey, which was also an Iowa-class.

argus said:

There's also a picture of her post refit alongside USS New Jersey, which was also an Iowa-class.

Yep, but the question was about Iowa specifically and so far as I can tell from reading Iowa had already left by the time she began her post refit trials around Norfolk, and Richelieu was gone by the time of Iowa's brief return so I don't think those two specifically were ever at sea in close proximity, certainly not on any actual operation. Actually Saratoga and her small DD escort might have been the only US warships she really sailed operationally with at all during the war.

WhiteCrow said:

Oh, so she was once rented to the US along with Illustrious? I guess it makes sense, because AFAIK the Americans were really short on BBs after the Pearl Harbor attack...
When I first heard a British carrier would be coming to Kancolle the first thing to come to mind was Illustrious. That made me expect some interaction between her and Saratoga but well, Ark Royal x Bismarck is fine too.

Come to think of it, why don't French ships seem to hate the British? I mean, the WW2 Marine Nationale had a really good reason to do so.

No, wrong carrier, that was Victorious fairly briefly in early 1943. In this case it was the other way around. Saratoga was sent with a pittance of DDs to the British Indian ocean fleet (to which Richelieu was attached at the time) in early 1944 for what amounted to a live fire training exercise to help familiarize them with US late war carrier operations and to asses their readiness for such operations since by this time the talk of a British carrier group eventually going to the Pacific was underway.

Richelieu was part of the covering group along with several RN capital ships. This a picture of her from the deck of Saratoga just before she detached to return to the Pacific.

WhiteCrow said:

Oh, so she was once rented to the US along with Illustrious? I guess it makes sense, because AFAIK the Americans were really short on BBs after the Pearl Harbor attack...
When I first heard a British carrier would be coming to Kancolle the first thing to come to mind was Illustrious. That made me expect some interaction between her and Saratoga but well, Ark Royal x Bismarck is fine too.

Come to think of it, why don't French ships seem to hate the British? I mean, the WW2 Marine Nationale had a really good reason to do so.

Richelieu was never rented to the US, nor to anyone by the way. She stayed in French hands with French crew.
Like Tk3997 said, she was assigned to the British Eastern Fleet in the Indian Ocean in 1944, where she participated in several Operations such as attacking Sabang or the Hunt for Haguro.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_battleship_Richelieu#With_the_British_Eastern_Fleet.2C_in_the_Indian_Ocean)

As for the relationship with Great Britain, i am also surprised there are no mention of Operation Catapult, Mers el Kébir or Dakar in any of Commandant Teste and Richelieu's lines (nor Ark Royal too)... Indeed those events revived anti-english sentiment within the French public opinion and the Navy at the time. They felt the British betrayed them and that De Gaulle and the Free French who sided with them were also traitors. The crew of the Richelieu themselves were not very fond of De Gaulle and not keen on fighting alongside the British after everything that happened before.

i guess the chaotic situation France was in and the tragedies that followed were too complicated for the devs so they prefered to avoid them.

By the way i also disagree with the Library introduction line of Richelieu where she said "i fought on both sides" which would suggest that she or the French Navy joined the Axis... which isn't true.
Actually that was one of the reasons the British advanced to justify their attacks, by accusing the French of deliberately wanting to give their fleet to the Germans and the Italians. Of course the French rejected those accusations as their orders were that their ships should remained French at all cost and to rather scuttle them than to let them fall in foreign hands (which they did in 1942 by the way when the Germans tried to seize them).

So hearing Richelieu saying she fought for the Axis is quite disturbing since she never did.

Kenzo40 said:
So hearing Richelieu saying she fought for the Axis is quite disturbing since she never did.

I suspect it may be a case of wrong translation. I've seen this line translated as "That's right, I had to fight against friends during that battle" in other sources, with this line referring to Battle of Dakar.

Fiveflower said:

I suspect it may be a case of wrong translation. I've seen this line translated as "That's right, I had to fight against friends during that battle" in other sources, with this line referring to Battle of Dakar.

Well the word 両陣営 means both sides/camps but it seems indeed a translation error.

The actual full sentence his "そうね、あの戦いは両陣営でも戦ったわ。" and i guess the meaning is rather "I fought AGAINST both sides" than "I fought ON both sides".

Which then would be more historically correct.

"Do you believe in God? Then give me big breasts or I'll send you to meet him!"

Minor edits, translated the postscript in the commentary.

Fiveflowers said:

I suspect it may be a case of wrong translation. I've seen this line translated as "That's right, I had to fight against friends during that battle" in other sources, with this line referring to Battle of Dakar.

The transcription on enwiki, which that translation is based on, seems to be incorrect.

Kenzo40 said:

Well the word 両陣営 means both sides/camps but it seems indeed a translation error.

The actual full sentence his "そうね、あの戦いは両陣営でも戦ったわ。" and i guess the meaning is rather "I fought AGAINST both sides" than "I fought ON both sides".

Which then would be more historically correct.

The Japanese does translate to "fought on both sides" - whether that is historically accurate is another matter.

LuceatEis said:

Minor edits, translated the postscript in the commentary.

The transcription on enwiki, which that translation is based on, seems to be incorrect.

The Japanese does translate to "fought on both sides" - whether that is historically accurate is another matter.

But we don't know if the one who did the translation was fluent in English or did use google translation...

Because if you use it, then it gives you "Well, that battle fought both camps." while saying there is a mistake and proposes to remove the "も" to then translates "Well, that battle fought with both camps."

It seems the word posing problem is "でも" which by itself means "but/even though". However if each hiragana are taken separately, "で" means "in/on" and "も" means "also".
So i guess "Well, i also fought on both sides during that battle/war." is a plausible translation since if they wanted to imply "fighting against" they would have use "と" instead of "で" and it doesn't make any sense if we use the meaning "but"...

Then i fear Tanaka mistakingly assumes that "fighting against the British" equals "fighting for the Axis" unfortunately.