The best turret arragement?

Warship design and construction, terminology, navigation, hydrodynamics, stability, armor schemes, damage control, etc.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

The best turret arragement?

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

I´ve wondering about this:

Which turret design and arragement was better:

a. The Bismarck´s with 4 x 2 (8 x 15")
b. The Yamato´s or Iowa´s with 3 x 3 (9 x 18" or 9 x 16")

And, another thing, would an arragement of 4 x 3 (12 x 15") would present a significant improvement in Bismarck´s combat capability?

Best regards!
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Gary
Senior Member
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Northumberland

Post by Gary »

Hi Karl.

I believe the 3 X 3 arrangement was favoured in later years.
It required a shorter Citadel than the 4 X 2 and provided one more gun.

12 X 15" guns would certainly improve Bismarck's combat capability BUT that would increase weight significantly not to mention the extra armour required thus meaning she would require a larger hull (in other words - Bismarck would be bigger than she historically was).

Then you have the 2 X 4 arrangment of Richelieu........

Hey do you remember HMS Agincourt?

7 turrets that were each named after a day of the week.

What were the designers thinking? :negative:
God created the world in 6 days.........and on the 7th day he built the Scharnhorst
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile »

I agree with Gary. It seems obvious that 50% more guns is better.

As far as the French two turret arrangement is concerned, I like it as far as BB vs BB combat is concerned. However, I think the extremely large turrets probably interfere with the forward arcs of the secondary battery, and this could be a big problem vs torpedo planes attacking from ahead of the ship.
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Post by Tiornu »

The main bonus for a Bismarck with triple turrets would be the reduced target area; remember, her turrets were poorly armored.
A survey of modern battleship designs shows a definite trend toward three turrets. It does seem that most navies found the advantages more important than the disadvantages.
I don't see the French quad turrets as imposing a significant disadvantage in heavy AA arcs.
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Post by marcelo_malara »

Hey do you remember HMS Agincourt?

7 turrets that were each named after a day of the week.

What were the designers thinking?
Hi all:

Agincourt was designed before a three gun turret arrangement could be made to work. It was the only way of putting 14 guns on a BB. Besides, it was designed for Argentina´s neighbour country, Brazil, in response to the Argentine navy building program.
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Post by Tiornu »

Dante Alighieri had triples, though she was older than Agincourt. Leonardo da Vinci had thriteen guns in only five turrets, and she too preceded Agincourt. If there had been the will, the British could have designed a triple turret. There was a detailed account of the Agincourt project in Warship International back c1988. Just from memory, I don't think any of the proposals had triple turrets.
User avatar
_Derfflinger_
Supporter
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:01 pm
Location: Missouri, USA

Post by _Derfflinger_ »

There is also the book "The Great Dreadnought" by Richard Hough, published by Harper & Row, 1966, that does a great job of telling the tale of HMS Agincourt, including her service at Jutland.

Derf
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Post by marcelo_malara »

Tiornu,you are right!!! Sorry, I failed to take the Italians dreadnoughts into account. What is most surprising, is that the turrets of those first dreadnoughts were made in England by Elswick an Vickers, so the expertise was already extant in UK to make such mounting.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Bgile:
As far as the French two turret arrangement is concerned, I like it as far as BB vs BB combat is concerned. However, I think the extremely large turrets probably interfere with the forward arcs of the secondary battery, and this could be a big problem vs torpedo planes attacking from ahead of the ship.
I will say this: in combat, a ship with more turrets, with the disadvantages this implies, when hit on one of them it has more remaining turrets operational. When a 3 x 3 BB is hit on one of her turrets it looses her 33% of offensive power while on a 4 x 2 arragement it looses only the 25%. Being this the case the arragement of 2 x 4 can be a great disadvantage.

What do you think?
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
RNfanDan
Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: USA

Post by RNfanDan »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:I will say this: in combat, a ship with more turrets, with the disadvantages this implies, when hit on one of them it has more remaining turrets operational. When a 3 x 3 BB is hit on one of her turrets it looses her 33% of offensive power while on a 4 x 2 arragement it looses only the 25%. Being this the case the arragement of 2 x 4 can be a great disadvantage.What do you think?
At a quick glance, 33% vs. 25% is significant; however, with so few guns making up the total, it's misleading---each gun carries a disproportionate percentage-value assignment. In reality, one turret disabled in each instance (3x3 vs. 4x2) still leaves six guns left to fire, all things otherwise being equal. If a second turret is now defeated in both instances, the margin goes from 8% to 16%, so, any advantage would seem to fall toward the 4x2 again, because the triple-gunner has lost 66% vs. the twin-gunner's 50%.

By this point in the battle however, there are too few guns left to produce effective salvoes in either ship, so the 16% gain is numerically no better than the 8%. It is probably reasonable to assume that, by this stage, ranges have closed enough that other factors gain greater significance, i.e., secondary armament, remaining speed, fire control, hull and propulsion condition, maneuverability---just to name a few.

Another assumption is that with both examples (3x3/4x2) a single target is being engaged. If dealing with multiple targets, the 4x2 arrangement allows a certain tactical advantage---but this is a different circumstance.

These are my thoughts on this interesting thread,

Thanks!
Image
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
I will say this: in combat, a ship with more turrets, with the disadvantages this implies, when hit on one of them it has more remaining turrets operational. When a 3 x 3 BB is hit on one of her turrets it looses her 33% of offensive power while on a 4 x 2 arragement it looses only the 25%. Being this the case the arragement of 2 x 4 can be a great disadvantage.

What do you think?
If there are fewer turrets, the armor on each turret can be thicker on the same displacement.

One potential disadvantage with large turrets is the resulting large barbettes can reduce the width of the side protective system, especially as the bow begins to taper. If you compensate by moving the turrets back in the ship, you end up with a small superstructure and poor secondary firing arcs toward the bow. Tiornu and I can agree to disagree on that. :)
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Bgile:
One potential disadvantage with large turrets is the resulting large barbettes can reduce the width of the side protective system, especially as the bow begins to taper. If you compensate by moving the turrets back in the ship, you end up with a small superstructure and poor secondary firing arcs toward the bow. Tiornu and I can agree to disagree on that. :)
Richelieu perhaps?
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Post by Tiornu »

"One potential disadvantage with large turrets is the resulting large barbettes can reduce the width of the side protective system, especially as the bow begins to taper."
It may be that the beam restrictions explains why you find more cruisers still mounting four twins.
ostriker
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: Nîmes, Southern France

Post by ostriker »

I think 3 X 3 or 4 X 3 if possible, are the better arrangement.

At the end of the war, all navies (but no germany i think :?: ), had this arrangement on her ships, or planned to build ships with this arrangement

USS Iowa 3X3 (And Montana biggest with 4 X 3 !!! )
IJN Yamato 3 X3
RM Littorio 3 X 3
RN Lion 3 X 3

French Alsace class, planned for 1942, was also with 3x3.
Russian Type 24 project had 4 X 3*

4 X 2 like bismarck is also a good solution, but you have less fire power when attacking ahead.

2 X 4, is , in my mind, a nonsense, french admiral were thinking that tey will have to run to italian battleships afterwards :silenced: :negative:
They set a bulkhead to divide each turret in two, but it didn't protect again a "rotative blockage".

And i don't know what to think about Nelson arrangement :?: :think:

* designed by italian
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Post by marcelo_malara »

Nelson´s arrangement was thought to keep the armour lenght short and save displacement. Other measures included a two screw arrangement. It was the only way of putting 9 16" in a 35000 t BB as prescribed by the Washington Conference.
Post Reply