Somebody mentioned 18x12"?

[Desertfox]

Agincourt with Stacked Sextuples? :o Now that   I have to build. ;D

A Gatling 6" Cannon might be more pausible and just as interesting, considering the troubles Ive had with DDs NS might just try to develop a smaller 4" Gatling.

[Carthaginian]

The British guns were IIRC "genuine" quads.

That's why I specified the 'early' part.
I knew the 4x14" gunhouses proposed for the N.C. class were 'true' quads, and I thought the same was true for the ones on the KGV's were as well.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
I got mixed up, as the French stuck to the double twin concept.
Borys

[Carthaginian]

Agincourt with Stacked Sextuples? :o Now that   I have to build. ;D

A Gatling 6" Cannon might be more pausible and just as interesting, considering the troubles Ive had with DDs NS might just try to develop a smaller 4" Gatling.

Maybe by the late 40's or early 50's... till then, about 2" would be the top end on a gatling-type gun- anything bigger would fire rounds faster than they could be loaded.

[Korpen]

Agincourt with Stacked Sextuples? :o Now that   I have to build. ;D

A Gatling 6" Cannon might be more pausible and just as interesting, considering the troubles Ive had with DDs NS might just try to develop a smaller 4" Gatling.

Maybe by the late 40's or early 50's... till then, about 2" would be the top end on a gatling-type gun- anything bigger would fire rounds faster than they could be loaded.

A more interesting question would be why anyone would want a gattling at all? It does not have any real advantage over a more conventional gun or revolver cannon, and it weights considerably more.

[Carthaginian]

A more interesting question would be why anyone would want a gattling at all? It does not have any real advantage over a more conventional gun or revolver cannon, and it weights considerably more.

Well, for small caliber gatlings, there is one ENORMOUS advantage... barrel temperature.
The fact that multiple barrels are firing the projectiles means that the heat is not concentrated in one location. The guns can fire for much longer periods of time without damaging the barrels.

For something this large, however, that advantage is a moot point.
You simply can't load anything bigger than a 1"/25mm fast enough to overheat the barrels.

[Korpen]

Well, for small caliber gatlings, there is one ENORMOUS advantage... barrel temperature.
The fact that multiple barrels are firing the projectiles means that the heat is not concentrated in one location. The guns can fire for much longer periods of time without damaging the barrels.

For something this large, however, that advantage is a moot point.
You simply can't load anything bigger than a 1"/25mm fast enough to overheat the barrels.

Oh, it is perfectly possible to overheat larger barrels, that is often one factor that limits the sustained ROF for field artillery even today.
And pretty much all automatic cannons could risk overheating, but the easiest way to reduce the risk for that was to add extra cooling to the gun. That is why pretty much all automatic canons have been water cooled in situations were weight was no major concern.

[Carthaginian]

Oh, it is perfectly possible to overheat larger barrels, that is often one factor that limits the sustained ROF for field artillery even today.

Emphasis mine... and that's my point.
You have to fire a large-caliber artillery piece VERY rapidly for a fairly long time to overheat it... like a ROF that couldn't be sustained at the time this discussion is taking place in N-verse. ;)

And pretty much all automatic cannons could risk overheating, but the easiest way to reduce the risk for that was to add extra cooling to the gun. That is why pretty much all automatic canons have been water cooled in situations were weight was no major concern.

Well, I've never seen a 105mm that was water cooled. ;)
Those take- according to my grandfather- quarter of an hour or more at max ROF to really start getting too hot to fire without destroying the barrel. Of course, he's relying on 60 year old data.

[Ithekro]

For a truely sick rapid fire cannon you need the American 8"/55 cal Mark 16 of the Des Moines-class heavy Cruisers with a fire rate of 10 shells per minute per barrel.  But you need to wait until the mid-late 1940s.

[Korpen]

Oh, it is perfectly possible to overheat larger barrels, that is often one factor that limits the sustained ROF for field artillery even today.

Emphasis mine... and that's my point.
You have to fire a large-caliber artillery piece VERY rapidly for a fairly long time to overheat it... like a ROF that couldn't be sustained at the time this discussion is taking place in N-verse. ;)

Not that extreme, for a 15cm guns 3-4 RPM is the maximum sustained fire today. However a modern gun can fire 20+ round in less then two minutes without any problems, but not for extended periods.

And pretty much all automatic cannons could risk overheating, but the easiest way to reduce the risk for that was to add extra cooling to the gun. That is why pretty much all automatic canons have been water cooled in situations were weight was no major concern.

Well, I've never seen a 105mm that was water cooled. ;)
Those take- according to my grandfather- quarter of an hour or more at max ROF to really start getting too hot to fire without destroying the barrel. Of course, he's relying on 60 year old data.

'
That might have something to do with the fact that army guns are subject to weight concerns, naval guns are not (to the same degree).
And how many 12cm guns with a ROF of over 80rpm have you seen? ;)

[Carthaginian]

Man, I don't know if the WORLD has ever seen a 105mm that could fire 80 RPM!
That's, like, a round every .6 seconds.
Most semi-auto rifles can't do that unless they are in very skilled hands.

[P3D]

A 6-barrel gatling cannon IMO would have lower ROF than a six-barrel mount...

For 155mm, the sustained ROF is 2/min (1950-60-era systems do 1/2min). It can be overcome by
a/ water cooling (AGS, Crusader)
b/ twin-barrel (Russian Koalitsiya SPH)

[Carthaginian]

A 6-barrel gatling cannon IMO would have lower ROF than a six-barrel mount...

The only problem with larger mounts comes in keeping them in ammo.
That is the practical limitation; if the ammo could be fed fast enough, the multi-barrel design would always win out.

[johnestauffer]

Beyond a certain point it seems the number of barrels per platform becomes a losing proposition.
While you can put double/triple the number of barrels on a single ship, you now have a heavily armed ship that is extremely vulnerable.  With more platforms you make the opponents targeting more difficult and reduce the opportunity for a hit that places your single, overarmed platform out of combat.
Plus, a single ship can only be in a single place. If you spread the firepower over multiple platforms you can deploy your forces more effectively.

But it is an interesting exercise.
The Agincourt worked out ok in the RN, given the large number of other capital ships.
But could the same be said in a small navy, where 18 guns were concentrated in a single ship?

[Carthaginian]

The Agincourt worked out ok in the RN, given the large number of other capital ships.
But could the same be said in a small navy, where 18 guns were concentrated in a single ship?

This would depend:
1.) are you far superior to the navy you are building to impress?
2.) are you building this ship in response to a similar ship buitl by another navy?

Both of those situations would necessitate- at least from a 'national pride' standpoint, the building of such a ship.
Otherwise, it's too many eggs in one basket.