The best turret arragement?

[RF]

Another aspect to this is the rate of fire per gun.

Moreguns/bigger turrets mean more weight - a 2 gun turret that could fire twice as fast as a three gun turret - I don't know whether this is feasible as I am not an engineer - would presumably be the way to develop matters.

Modern day frigates etc. have one main gun - small calibre but capable of very rapid fire and much greater range than the WW2 equivalent and of course much more accurate.

Looking at 'H' Class I supose the ultimate would be a 21 inch calibre machine gun!

Sounds fantastic - but no more fantastic than laser beams, death rays and the levitating Martian tank machines of Herbert George Wells.

[yellowtail3]

old but interesting, so I'll weigh in -

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")

the 3x3 was superior

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

Yes - any additional firepower would have been helpful to Bismarck. Heck 4x3 14" guns might have been a better deal (IMHO, of course...)

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%. What do you think?

Two things: first, the 3x3 ship - if a USN 16" ship? - is less likely to lose the turret, due to superior protection of turret/barbette. Secondly - if the 3x3 ship does lose a turret, it still has six guns, same as the 2x2 ship losing a turret - and those six remaining 16" guns are substantially more potent than the 2x2 ship's remaining six guns...

[RF]

yellowtail, I would imagine the question here is of the weight involved. Bismarck with four triple turrets would have been considerably heavier, with no pretence that the ship was only 35,000 tons, Bismarck's ''official'' weight.

[Karl Heidenreich]

yellowtail:

I do have the certain feeling that all your comments are directed against mine, even if they are three years old and severe changes in the way I see things had occured. However I do believe that the sole purpose of your answers goes in the direction of being provocative and insulting, just for the fun of it.

I do suggest you go, basically instead of quoting me and answering in order to produce insults to explain your points better than: 3 x 3 is far superior! Which is likely not!

[yellowtail3]

yellowtail:I do have the certain feeling that all your comments are directed against mine, even if they are three years old and severe changes in the way I see things had occured. However I do believe that the sole purpose of your answers goes in the direction of being provocative and insulting, just for the fun of it.

Well, your posts were... interesting. Insult not intended. If you'd prefer, I won't quote you again.

I do suggest you go, basically instead of quoting me and answering in order to produce insults to explain your points better than: 3 x 3 is far superior! Which is likely not!

well, I think I did. 3x3, losing a turret, still has as many guns as 4x2. If comparing a USN BB to a German one... the remaining 2x3 is more capable than the remaining 3x2. Makes sense?

[boredatwork]

well, I think I did. 3x3, losing a turret, still has as many guns as 4x2. If comparing a USN BB to a German one... the remaining 2x3 is more capable than the remaining 3x2. Makes sense?

I believe Karl was questioning the layout, irrespective of caliber. (even if he unnecessarily included it in his original post)

ie is 4x2x16" better or worse than 3x3x16" or is 4x2x15" better or worse than 3x3x15" - ie apples to apples.

In which case the likely answer, assuming a reasonable degree of competance in execution, is 4x2 is better from a Gunnery Point of View but 3x3 is better at saving weight which, for a given limit can be reapplied to improve other features of the design.

[yellowtail3]

I believe Karl was questioning the layout, irrespective of caliber. (even if he unnecessarily included it in his original post)

ie is 4x2x16" better or worse than 3x3x16" or is 4x2x15" better or worse than 3x3x15" - ie apples to apples.

Well, in that case - and assuming plenty of capacity for extra tonnage/gun? - going to 4x2 makes a bit more sense. But 3x3 still leaves you with the same number of guns upon losing a turret as 4x2 minus a turret does, so... I think I'd go with 3x3, and use the saved tonnage for armor.

[Karl Heidenreich]

RF:

I was going to post this in a PM to you since there is a troll inhabiting the forum but, what the hell. This is what I reviewed from serious sources:

In the KGV class the British did consider, before they came with their "last" layout the following from where we can review the various 1935 programme proposals:

16A: 9 x 16" in a 3 x 3 arragement.
16B: 8 x 16" in a 2 x 3 + 1 x 2 arragement
16C: 9 x 16" in a 3 x 3 arragement
15A: 9 x 15" in a 3 x 3 arragement
15B: 9 x 15" in a 3 x 3 arragement
14A: 12 x 14" in a 4 x 3 arragement
14Q: 12 x 14" in a 4 x 3 arragement
14C: 12 x 14" in a 4 x 3 arragement
14D: 8 x 14" in a 1 x 4 + 2 x 2 arragement
14E: 10 x 14" in a 2 x 4 + 1 x 2 arragement (similar to final KGV)
14F: 12 x 14" in a 3 x 4 arragement

As you can see the triple arragement was considered since the early proposal days.

Properly, when the 14N, 14"0" and 14P designs (final KGV proposals) were under study the "balance" criteria depended totally in the mounting. It was considered the use of both, 9 x 14" and 9 x 15". The 9 x 15" was considered of all the proposal one of the best but the Treaty considerations prevented it´s use. The 9 x 14" was considered too "light" and undesirable against the 15" of the enemy navies.
At the end the 14P design was the one chosen with 10 x 14". As per the geometry issues the 14P (KGV) demanded new calculations of the ship´s trim and the citadel was needed to be moved six feet forward to compensate for the reduced weight of the twin (instead of the quadruple) B turret.

Best regards,