Considering that most WW1 navies had a normal fire doctrine for ships with double turrets ships of firing one gun per turret while the other gun was loading, what was the real advantage of triple turrets? As far as I have been able to determine, at least the Austrian Navy fired one gun of each triple turret of the Tegetthof class in each salvo. As practical rate of fire rarely exceeded one round per gun per minute during engagements, one wonders what the true value of a triple turret in WW1 really was? Actual number of rounds being fired at a target when firing one gun per turret and then spotting would appear not to be markedly increased over a ship with double turrets.
I wonder, was this taken into account by the navies that did build triple turreted ships during WW1, the Italians, Russians and Austrians? As for the USN, they apparently favored full broadside salvoes, and as a result suffered from large salvo spread and generally inferior accuracy compared to the GF, and the problems do not appear to have been overcome until after WW1.
Interested to hear if anyone has further information or thoughts on this subject.
Edit: Maybe I should have put this in the Weapons section...
What was the real ROF advantage of triple turrets in WW1?
-
Ersatz Yorck
- Member
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:56 pm
Re: What was the real ROF advantage of triple turrets in WW1
With one round per salvo & turret, ammunition feed and firing sequence problems are greatly reduced in triple turrets.
While twin turrets may have one round per salvo and turret and up to three turret salvo´s per minute, the mean actual output may drop due to drill errors or mechanical casualities. With triple turrets, a rapid fire condition may be sustained with much less likelyhood for drill errors and mechanical casualities if only one round fires per salvo instead of three in rapid fire mode. That keeps the ouput rate higher. With 85% average output for a 1/2 turret salvo and up to three turret salvo´s per minute in rapid fire, you could realistically expect 92.5% output with a 1/3 turret salvo (and up to three salvo´s per minute in rapid fire) or 77% with a 3 gun salvo (and only up to 1 salvo per minute sustainable at least in ww1 due to ammunition feed issues).
While twin turrets may have one round per salvo and turret and up to three turret salvo´s per minute, the mean actual output may drop due to drill errors or mechanical casualities. With triple turrets, a rapid fire condition may be sustained with much less likelyhood for drill errors and mechanical casualities if only one round fires per salvo instead of three in rapid fire mode. That keeps the ouput rate higher. With 85% average output for a 1/2 turret salvo and up to three turret salvo´s per minute in rapid fire, you could realistically expect 92.5% output with a 1/3 turret salvo (and up to three salvo´s per minute in rapid fire) or 77% with a 3 gun salvo (and only up to 1 salvo per minute sustainable at least in ww1 due to ammunition feed issues).
-
Ersatz Yorck
- Member
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:56 pm
Re: What was the real ROF advantage of triple turrets in WW1
Interesting! Thanks for the reply.
The Austrians apparently had a firing doctrine firing one gun per turret per salvo in the Tegetthof class (Friedman: Naval Weapons of WW1). That would be uncomplicated given that all turrets in the ship were triple turrets. What about ships with mixed double and triple turrets? It would seem difficult to maintain a regular one gun per turret rate if some turrets were double and some triple. Was the US preference for full salvoes a result of the fact that some of their ships were equipped with mixed turrets? The only other navy of the time that had mixed double and triple turrets was the Italian navy. What firing doctrine did they have? And did the Russians do as the Austrians with their all triple turreted ships?
The Austrians apparently had a firing doctrine firing one gun per turret per salvo in the Tegetthof class (Friedman: Naval Weapons of WW1). That would be uncomplicated given that all turrets in the ship were triple turrets. What about ships with mixed double and triple turrets? It would seem difficult to maintain a regular one gun per turret rate if some turrets were double and some triple. Was the US preference for full salvoes a result of the fact that some of their ships were equipped with mixed turrets? The only other navy of the time that had mixed double and triple turrets was the Italian navy. What firing doctrine did they have? And did the Russians do as the Austrians with their all triple turreted ships?
Re: What was the real ROF advantage of triple turrets in WW1
As far as the USN doctrine in WW1 goes, the triples in the US Navy at that time had all the guns mounted in a common cradle and fixed loading angles, so separate loading and firing was not possible in the triples at least.
Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.
Re: What was the real ROF advantage of triple turrets in WW1
I seem to recall that the US battlesquadron that joined Home fleet showed a huge improvement after a bit of extensive coaching by the British. I don't think it was firing full boradsides that was the problem more institutional complacency as they were also from what I've read rather embarassed at how much better the British shooting was.Ersatz Yorck wrote:... As for the USN, they apparently favored full broadside salvoes, and as a result suffered from large salvo spread and generally inferior accuracy compared to the GF, and the problems do not appear to have been overcome until after WW1.
...