Darlan and the rest of the naval command evaluated the design proposals, but the choice was obvious from the start according to the historians John Jordan and Robert Dumas. No. 2, armed with 406 mm guns, would have introduced a fourth caliber to the French battle line (after the 380 mm guns of the "Richelieu"s, the guns of the s, and the guns of the older s). Additionally, the 406 mm gun had not yet been produced, so the necessary design work might have delayed completion of the new ships. The No. 3 type was simply too large for existing naval bases to easily accommodate. This left No. 1 as the only realistic option for the next battleship program. Historians William Garzke and Robert Dulin disagree, however, pointing out that the French Navy had never built a three-gun turret before. Building the ships under wartime constraints (and with the need to produce the ship as quickly as possible), repeating the four-gun turrets of the "Richelieu"s made the most sense, and they argue that the No. 3 design was the most likely version to be built.