What is optimal? 2? 3? 1? 4? X?
>applying to battleships
On the one hand, if you build a turret, you might as well increase the number of guns; but, on the other hand, isn't it best to just put the *biggest* gun(s) in your turret?
>twin 15" guns are better than triple 12" guns?
# of Canon per Turret
Jonathan Cooper
Thomas Phillips
And before anyone says that it's different for ships, ask yourself how many ship turrets have more than one gun in them today?
Robert Morris
More guns per turret allows you to have less turrets thus lighter ship because less armor internal armor plating required for same protection level
Ethan Diaz
3 seems optimal. 4 gun turrets were often noted for the vibrations causing shots after the first to be considerably less accurate because of how much the more tightly packed guns made one another vibrate.
Julian Morales
Two turrets, four 13in/330mm guns each, all fore mounted
HON HON HON
Justin Peterson
It's a compromise between survivability (putting more of your eggs in one basket), protection/weight benefits (more guns per turret means less steel required for equivalent protection) and superstructure constraints (being able to fit, centre of gravity, stress and strain).
John King
>I hope they're gentlemen and never try and hangout in our massive blindspot
Jaxon Lopez
Two rifles per turret is ideal.
Three rifles per turret is efficient.
Four rifles per turret doesn't work that well.
Jason Adams
3 16''
Juan Brooks
Missiles
Christopher Myers
4X2 of 800mm guns.
Dylan Young
not quite as good a comparison as you would think.
most tanks shots are effectively direct fire, naval artillery on the other hand is artillery and unguided long range fire at that, ships fired knowing that there shots would arrive in a certain area perhaps a minute later, that area was where you thought the enemy ship would be by the time the shells landed.
at those ranges and in those circumstances the number of shells in the air did more to increase the probability of a hit than any gain by using single gun turrets.
on a practical level 3 gun turrets seem to have been the optimum in terms of weight savings versus mechanical complexity in the turret, 4 gun turrets seem to have had mechanical issues in any navy that used them
Sebastian Sanchez
>This breaks the Reich's economy and industry
Isaac Barnes
Costs as much as 10 standard BBs.
Easton King
*Carpet bombs you*
Jaxson Perry
Guns aren't primary weapons anymore.
Nathaniel Reed
Modern ship turrets are only small DP guns. They also fire as fast as old school twin turrets.
>anything fast enough to hang out abaft of a maneuvering battlecruiser wouldn't get btfo by 12x13cm guns
Carter Smith
It all depends on what guns you had available.
The advantage of cramming more guns into turrets came in weight - each turret weighed hundreds of tons, so the more guns you put in a turret, the fewer turrets you need, freeing up weight for other things, including armor. Limiting the number of turrets also lets you put turrets closer together, limiting the size of the armored citadel and letting you save even more weight. We can see this concept taken to its logical extreme with French ships like Dunkerque and Richelieu or the British Nelson class.
The big disadvantages come in terms of resiliency in combat. While interference between shells from guns too close together was a noted issue, that can largely be solved by having a split-second delay between firing. The real issue came with the fact that fewer turrets to house the guns meant more of your guns were going to be lost if a turret was destroyed. That was a major concern for Richelieu, with the solution there being to split the turret into armored compartments, so that one penetrating shot would only disable half the guns.
Another thing to consider, but not necessarily a an advantage or disadvantage, is the width of the turrets. The width of the hull plays a big part in the performance of a ship, and if you're really stretching the limits of the design, you can end up in a situation where your hull isn't wide enough to fit the turret you want. The Pensacola-class cruiser exemplified this, with the forward and aftmost turrets being too far forward to have more than two guns, while the turrets superfiring over them had just enough space for a third gun.
Colton Nguyen
Why hasn’t some 3rd world shithole (like a struggling arab state) park a bunch of tanks on a cargo vessel as a sort of makeshift battleship?
I would love to see a duel between 2 of those.
Hunter Harris
The correct answer is two 15" BL naval rifles.
Jose James
>isn't it best to just put the *biggest* gun(s) in your turret?
There is a balance to be had, not only in the efficiency of the armor protection (as many have pointed out), but also in the ability to accurately direct fire. The fewer guns you have, the more difficult it is to call the fall of shot on distant targets.
If each gun can be thought of as firing within a cone of accuracy measured in MOA, the fewer guns you have then the more likely it is that you'll have salvos with all of your shots dispersing to the same quadrant of that cone of accuracy. For example, imagine you're the gunnery officer of HMS Furious, carrying two 18" guns in two single turrets. You are firing on a target at an exact known distance. 1/3rd of your shots are going to straddle the target, 1/3rd are going to have both shells fall short, and the final 1/3rd are going to fall long. Now imagine firing on another ship that's moving evasively where the distance isn't known exactly- it becomes effectively impossible to gauge whether you're firing accurately because you cannot differentiate between shells landing short because of statistical distribution, or inaccurate range estimation.
This is another reason why three guns per turret ended up rising to the top- not only does it allow the designers to create a more efficient armor scheme, but it also allows grants you an extra barrel over four twin gun turrets.
Jackson Nguyen
That's not the main battery of the Iowa class, user.
Brayden Ramirez
Indeed, its the main battery of classes that actually sank enemy ships in combat.
Jace Cox
>At mean range of 14,500yds, Iowa closed with Katori and fired 46 16-inch (406 mm) high capacity (non-armor-piercing) rounds and 124 5-inch (127 mm), straddling the cruiser with eight salvos. CAG 17/A16-3 reports Iowa hits Katori with her second salvo. Just after Iowa's forth salvo, Katori quickly listed to port exposing seven large shell holes about 5 feet (1.5 m) in diameter in her starboard side, one under the bridge about five feet below the waterline another amidships about at the waterline, plus about nine small holes.[citation needed] The damage on the port side was much worse. After being under attack by Iowa for only about 5 minutes, Katori sank stern first, with a port side list at 07°45N 151°20E about 40 miles (64 km) northwest of Truk. A large group of survivors were seen in the water after she sank, but the Americans did not recover any.
Luis Edwards
Huh.
15" still better.
Eli Howard
No
Justin Thompson
The world wonders why anyone would want inferior batteries.
Carson Perez
I feel like it's possible for someone to eventually revive the monitor concept. Having a big gun could be useful in some cases for a sustained shore bombardment. Maybe have some missiles on it as well for burst capability and range.
Not to be confused with the "Bring back battleships" nonsense.