Turrets vs. Beam

[The Rock Doctor]

See attached.

There are two pages; one has completed warships with twin turrets of 7.1" and larger, from early dreadnoughts up to Vanguard.

The second page, helpfully labelled TRIPLE, does the same with early triple-shippers up to Iowa and Yamato, 7.1" and up.

Both sheets exclude ships with wing turrets (early German dreadnoughts, for ex) as this may complicate minimum beam considerations.  It's all-centreline ships only.

Pre-dreadnoughts and armored cruisers, as well as monitors, were omitted, but Thonburi (as a post WW1 design) is included, as are post-dreadnought Baltic CDS.

I will go back and add various late WW1/pre-WNT designs, such as Carraciolo, Tosa, and Lexington, later tonight.

[Desertfox]

I think you can see a clear line as long as you don't count the CDS and the Aobas, same with the triples, the pocket battleships are the outliers.

[The Rock Doctor]

Updated with some late WW1/cancelled stuff and British monitors.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Thanks for posting this, it certainly gives something to work from.

While variables such as TDS depth, turret width and BC aren't there, we may not want to worry that much.
... though I'm trying :)

[Desertfox]

Interesting, every ship (except the Aoba) that falls under the main trendline has two non-superfiring turrets, and the Aobas had known problems. Non-superfiring = less metacentric height? Two turrets = less holes in structure?

[Jefgte]

Very interesting board
Thanks for post it.

Jef  ;)

[The Rock Doctor]

Interesting, every ship (except the Aoba) that falls under the main trendline has two non-superfiring turrets, and the Aobas had known problems. Non-superfiring = less metacentric height? Two turrets = less holes in structure?

We get the two Baltic CDS and Thonburi, which likely have limited underwater protection; the pocket battleships, which are really cruiser hulls also with limited underwater protection; and Aoba.

The low end of that big 15" twin spread is, surprise, the Fisher Follies.

It seems like the range of beams for twin 8" and 12" is only about five feet less than that for triples.

[The Rock Doctor]

I guess I realized that the British monitors were wide, but it hadn't actually occurred to me that they were as beamy as their actual battleships.

[Kaiser Kirk]

It seems like the range of beams for twin 8" and 12" is only about five feet less than that for triples.

The conclusion I vaguely remember coming up with a long time ago... about 1.5m for triples vs. twins....which is apparently 4.92feet. So yeah, about 5 feet.
A little less if single sleeved. 

[maddox]

Don't worry about it.

If SS allows it, then the Nverse7 naval engineers have solved the issues.

If you use historical designs, I could point out the Scharnhorst with tripple 280's that used the same barbette as Bismarcks' twin 380's.

[Kaiser Kirk]

If you use historical designs, I could point out the Scharnhorst with tripple 280's that used the same barbette as Bismarcks' twin 380's.

My recollection was that was deliberate in the Scharnhorst design to allow the rearming. I could be mistaken.
We do allow folks to rearm ships, so long as the the weight is the same - weight being the N7 stand-in for the unknown of barbette diameter for our researched guns.

Scharnhorstat 30m and T3 283 was beamier than either the 27m Revenge with T2 15", or any of the Deustchland with 21.7m and  T3 283