Largest Possible and Feasible Battleship Armaments

[ctwaterman]

I always found how the ROF were timed to be a factor....

Is it 3 RPM with the 1st round already in the barrel and time startining as you fire the first round.

This is how some Realy Elite and skilled British Units used to get 5 RPM out of a Brown Bess... It took them 15 seconds to load and fire but since the clock didnt start till they fired the first round :)

Charles

[Delta Force]

Do you know if the guns were gyrostabilized, or if the firecontrol systems just factored it in? Expensive telescopes use similar technology, but of course they don't shoot things.

[Kaiser Kirk]

stablized in the vertical plane

American FC systems employed by far the most advanced stable vertical elements in the world.

On ROF... Even 1.5 vs. 2.5 is a difference.  I've got numbers stuck in my head (i.e. don't take them as correct) that run Quads 1.3, Triples 1.6, Twins 2.

Presuming these are reasonable, and the ship is in a position to use them, then a 12 gun ship would have the following ROF : Quads 15.6, Triples 19.2, Twins 24.

*IF* the Bavarians build the Wotan then I expect guns of 18cm secondary to fire the ranging brackets between Main battery salvos at ranges <18,000. That leaves the 18-24 band still :)

[P3D]

A battleship has a limited number of shells on board, which is (my guess) why they were reluctant historically to conduct rapid fire. Especially when they are on a commerce raiding mission.

I also question those numbers on twin-triple-quad turrets. Most of the battles with quad turrets involved ships that were not properly worked up, and what was effectively first-generation equipment. Jean Bart and Richelieu achieved 32s loading cycles after post-war modifications.
Were the French completed a single ship of the Normandie class, there would have had been less issue in follow-on designs.

My theory is the following regarding quad firing rates.
First generation quad turrets would have issues for sure.  In the shell loading room crews will interfere with each other (less space available to move those heavy shells around). After experience with loading arrangements solution for this would have been found.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Thats why I included that disclaimer - For example I think the 1.6 comes from the single-sleeve USN triples, which were cramped mountings and later ones may have been more like 1.8.  However, they did use that narrow single-sleeve design on a number of the Standards before changing. Which led in large part to the dispersal issues.  Dispersal also seems to have been an issue on the French 'dual twins' as each twin was close, something also corrected with delay coils. Two examples of your conjecture of early variants of turrets leaving things to be desired.

You are also correct that post war changes to the French hoists are reported on Nav Weaps to have allieviated the issue...but in both cases that is a quarter century down the road. On the other hand, twin turrets were basically abandoned and did not benefit from follow one designs, so perhaps they would have seen performance increases.

Your ideas on why not to rapid fire make sense in many circumstances.

If we change it to ROF of 1.7/2/2.25  we get 20.4, 24, 27

[Delta Force]

Well, as long as the Richmond Treaty is in force, we're probably never going to see any quadruple turrets, and probably very few triples. Speaking of which, does anyone have a link to the Richmond Treaty?

[Logi]

Practically all my designs use quads. In fact, Richmond treaty should force more triples and quadruple (in theory) to save weight.

[Delta Force]

I can't seem to be able to fit enough guns to get an extra turret, and having doubles does add a measure of redundancy to the design. Doubles are more reliable than the quadruples and triples, and if you suffer some kind of mechanical problem or the turret gets jammed, destroyed, or otherwise incapable of firing you lose only two guns instead of three or four.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Well my "Wotan" gains substantially if I swap to Quads, and minorly with triples. Of course she's 12 guns to start. I could also probably shrink the citadel. The Quads also help with getting to slow and steady roll.

[Delta Force]

I'll have to toy around with various turret arrangements. After the forth turret things start getting crowded, and while I could do an Agincourt style layout the ship ends up being able to bring a fraction of its guns to bear on targets near the ends.

However, if you were to do something like three groups of three twin turrets, such a ship would have the ability to fight many ships at once, and if the twins have a higher RoF than triples and quadruples they could quickly sink enemy ships.

[Logi]

Tins only have a higher RoF than quads because it's been used longer so it's more reliable (as P3D says, more experience with the optimal loading arrangements). Besides, the weight savings from a quad turret easily allow you to mount more barrels than if you were with twins.

The weight savings not only come from the lower area needed to be protected but also the fact that quads don't have to be raised as often as Twins. That means quads can be mounted without expending much stability, seakeeping, or strength compared to a twin/triple.

Also 3 groups of three twin turrets would require a humongous ship length. That in itself makes it undesirable. Makes a larger turning radius, the ship a bigger target, and the ship structurally much weaker.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Also 3 groups of three twin turrets would require a humongous ship length. That in itself makes it undesirable. Makes a larger turning radius, the ship a bigger target, and the ship structurally much weaker.

Granted it is not an optimal arrangement. The principle sin is the amidships turrets in P/Q were always problematic and had limited arcs. However it's not as bad as you seem to indicate.

The Hyuga and Yamashio classes were both <220m.  Arkansas was 170m.  While the 4x2 Queen Elizabeths were ~196m, and the 3x2 Repulse was 242m.
Length is not prohibitive, especially if higher design speeds drive a longer hull anyhow.  In return you gain some redundancy, reliability, and ROF, and should you choose - the ability to have slightly narrower beam with the same TDS.

Presumably on an AON armor scheme, your citadel length is driven by the desired floatation of the armored raft, so the compact nature of a Nelson or Richeliu style concentrated battery may not actually allow you a shorter citadel in comparison to a 4x2 without compromising the desired AON area.  Granted the 6x2 could push that citadel longer than the minimum, thus "costing" tonnage.

Now, if tonnage is limiting, then the savings of triples and quads become far more apparent.
In my case, for what I'm considering, I have twins, it's a long time until I can manufacture a quad turret, and the difference between a twin layout and quad is about 4%.. or about 1500tons.  My navy is purely a luxury, I think I can build 1 less destroyer and build a 4% larger BB. 

[Delta Force]

Since battleships are designed for broadsides anyways, is it really all that bad to have amidships turrets? Obviously an eighteen gun ship able to bring only four guns to bear aft and fore is a massive firepower reduction, but in a broadside battle it would have a nice edge. I will have to toy around with designs later today, but an Agincourt like battleship with 13.5 inch guns should be possible.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I think that goes back to your expected battle parameters. Certainly if you expect to be sailing in paralell lines it is not a big issue.  The negatives are a restricted arc of fire, a 3rd magizine area, and that you have to fit the barbettes in the middle of what is typically a machinery area. 

One criticism I read of a USN design included having steam pipes right next to the amidships magizine, raising temperatures. However this type of design flaw doesn't seem to be "Q" specific, as designers not paying attention to heat sources and magazine location pops up repeatedly when reading about such vessels.

[Delta Force]

I did some tinkering around with the twin turret designs I had, and I found that the difference between twins, triples, and quadruples is usually rather small. The turrets with more guns in them are only good if you can eliminate superfiring guns, otherwise I found that they actually reduce hull strength. That is somewhat unexpected. You can save hundreds of tons in turret weight by going with less turrets holding more guns, but you end up losing hull strength and having to carry less armament.

However, I did test this using a design that had only battlecruiser levels of armor and attempted to carry maximum firepower. Perhaps a more balanced or more armored design would experience benefits.