How do battleship towers work

Just a question.

When I see all the battleships, I always wonder why they each had different gun arrangements.

Stop 4x2 / 3x3 / or 2x4 + 2x2 etc.

What did that depend on? The older battleships like Repulse and Malaya had 4x2s, newer ones like the Iowa and Yamato had 3x3s. And the King Georg V had 2x4 / 1x2

The whole time I've been wondering why and why they were arranged this way.

Although I personally think that an arrangement like the one in the KG V is not very good. If only one of the four towers fills out, they lose 40% of their firepower. Well

Thanks in advance for the help
Then take a look at the Nelson class BCs first.
The question of gun positioning depends on the tactical use. The field of fire is important, or how many guns should fire in one direction at the same time. The "broadside" was mostly given preference. Anything beyond that is a question of philosophy ...
Number of tubes per tower: weight issue ... A tower with 3 tubes only needs a little more armored steel than one with 2 ... the only problem is the loading machines, which cope better with even numbers, otherwise the tower always has to be in the loading position. The Germans didn't have the problem with their armored ships ... Had developed a special loading machine that could load the middle tube in any position.
Well I noticed that newer build battleships all had 3x3 towers. Okay, Bismark and Tirpitz with their 4x2 and KG V with their 2x4 + 1x2 were exceptions, but the most modern ships of this class (Iowa and Yamato) had the 3x3 arrangement.

And when I look at all the old ships, they all had the 4x2. That must interact directly with the technology of the time, right?
Well, the more towers you have, the more targets you can fight at the same time, e.g. in a convoy hunt you can fire several escort ships at the same time. In return, you have less armor, as its weight is distributed over several turrets, plus the weight of the other turret equipment.
So if I am supposed to mainly fight against very big vessels, I will use fewer towers, if I should mainly fight against smaller ships (convoy blockades), I will use more towers.
At least I think so.

MfG jever
Hmm I once said that battleships were primarily built for the purpose of fighting other battleships or destroying heavily fortified coastal targets.
Well, the Bismark was supposed to mainly reach the open Atlantic to disrupt sea traffic. A direct confrontation with the British fleet shouldn't afaik be rented out?

MfG jever
It's all a compromise.
A quadruple tower is heavier than a driling but has a higher firepower. But you can't put it high! And, as I said before, in the event of a failure you will have lost a higher percentage of the firepower. The British twin towers are built to complement their quadruplets. (You couldn't install a third quad because of the balance or something)

Well, the Bismark was supposed to mainly reach the open Atlantic to disrupt sea traffic. A direct confrontation with the British fleet shouldn't afaik be rented out?


It has nothing to do with Bismark's firepower. It has to do with the fact that no ship can stand alone against a fleet.
Battleships are ALWAYS there to fight other battle units, maybe secondary for other things ... against merchant ships you wage cruiser war ... they are more efficient.

Another problem is also the fire control: In quadruple storms, the firepower is used more directly (i.e. one command for 4 pipes), while with more towers with 2 pipes each one is more flexible in the choice of destination ... especially advantageous for numerous inferior targets (against cruisers and destroyer).
Overall, I don't know of any major battle in which one variant was particularly advantageous ...
I'm not an expert there, but another possibility would be how advanced the entire ammunition system of the tower was. Perhaps in the past you could only load 2-gun turrets in a reasonable time and shoot them again. Later on, automation will probably have pushed this problem back a bit!
[QUOTE = ChrisCRTS, 23.06.2005, 17:24] The fleet should still be rented out? [/ Quote]

It has nothing to do with Bismark's firepower. It has to do with the fact that no ship can stand alone against a fleet. [/ QUOTE]
It would have taken 7 or 8 ships of the Bismark class to face the English battle fleet. I'm not going to take a look at the aircraft carriers here
Ice marten: I mentioned that a little earlier

Also compare the loading times on the data sheets here at HQ: Bsimarck, Hood, Iowa, Dunkerque 2 shots per minute each, Yamato 1. With the Dunkerque there is also something about the number of tubes.
Oh, I missed that. And frankly, I don't know how a loading machine works. ;)
Me too ... but I know what it says
I can see if I can scan in a few schemes for tower setups and tactics from tomorrow ... or maybe take a look for yourself: Helmut Pemsel: Seeherrschaft, Vol. 2, Augsburg 1995. But there is now a new, expanded edition .. there has the band number changed.
Hm, it would be nice if you would do that. I don't know the book and the bib sure doesn't!
So at the MSM it is recommended as a standard reference work, especially for numbers ... and the new edition is even more powerful ... have volume 5 World history of seafaring: Maritime rule I and that ends in 1650 ... so it is still loosely 2 up to the modern age -3 volumes ...

Are there any other questions?
Unfortunately, I didn't get around to buying a scanner, so here's a written summary of the sketches:

Arrangement (twin towers are always assumed):

1. Midship line: 1 fore, 1 aft, offset to each other on port and starboard, one offset from the midship line
total: 8 tubes; Front light 6, broadside 8, stern light 6
2. Midship line 1 fore, 1 aft, 2 bb and stb each offset from the midship line
Total: 12 tubes, Bf 6, Bs 8, Hf 6
3. Midship line: 1 forward, 1 middle, 2 stern
Total: 8, Bf 2, Bs 8 Hf 4 (also works the other way around: 2 front, 1 rear)
4. Midship line: 2 bow, 1 middle, 2 stern,
Total: 10, Bf 4, Bs 10, Hf 4

Variant 1 with the staggered towers thus proves to be the most efficient variant in terms of the number of pipes to the fire area ... Example: SMS Von der Tann and slightly modified (2nd rear tower) SMS Moltke & co
The positioning of the towers was always a question of space and weight. This was particularly important for the battlecruisers in WW1 because they needed a lot of boilers to reach the high speeds! The rest was then built around it The French never used the 3x3 arrangement, the Dunkerque and Richelieu classes each have 2x4. And the last British battleship, the Vanguard, had the good old 4x2 layout again
Many boilers would mean there is no space amidships. But if you already see the first battle cruiser "von der Tann", it had 2 towers amidships (1 on each side) instead of a mere arrangement at the bow and stern. So that about the space required for the boiler cannot be right!
Another important factor for the location of the towers is the armored belt: The Nelson class BCs had all their armament on a relatively short length of the ship. Accordingly, the armored belt was short and light.

Boiler: The arrangement of the boiler rooms can also be staggered; not all boilers have to be in 1-2 departments. Also, the German BCs weren't quite as fast as the British ... but better armored.
I don't even know where to start ...: D

First a graphic to at least clarify the different variants of the tower setups on German ships of the line from the Nassau class:

Picture: http://träger.lycos.de/sdw86/turmschemata.jpg (picture automatically removed)

And then briefly clarify a few things:

1.)
Well, the Bismark was supposed to mainly reach the open Atlantic to disrupt sea traffic. A direct confrontation with the British fleet shouldn't afaik be rented out?


True, but has nothing to do with the tower setup. The basic principle of the Bismarck class is just a further development of the Bayern class, nothing else.
The German Navy always had twin towers on their battleships. Exceptions are the battlecruisers / battleships of the Scharnhorst class, which have taken over the triple towers from the \ "armored ships \" of the Deutschland class, but these two classes represent a quasi independent development line, while from Nassau to Tirpitz there is a uniformity the development can determine.

2.)
Also compare the loading times on the data sheets here at HQ: Bsimarck, Hood, Iowa, Dunkerque 2 rounds per minute each, Yamato 1.


I wouldn't get too stuck on loading times. The German tower technology in particular was very mature and something like reloading rooms or the technology of triplet towers without the need to drive the tower in the loading position led to significantly higher fire speeds for a short time. The question is how long the crew will play this \ "game \".

3.)
2. Midship line 1 fore, 1 aft, 2 bb and stb each offset from midship line
Total: 12 tubes, Bf 6, Bs 8, Hf 6


Afaik was the first to use this principle in the German Navy on the Great Cruiser Blücher (installation grant 1905), whereby the hexagonal arrangement should serve to have a tower reserve available in Feuerlee in the event of the failure of the towers in Feuerluv.

Due to the increasing combat distance and the resulting steeper shells, the reserve towers were just as much endangered, which led the principle to absurdity and one went over to individual wing towers that could fire on both sides, finally to the pure midship position and finally came to the 4 tower Principle. A sensible increase in firepower was now only possible with a larger caliber (example: Derrflinger and Mackensen; 30.5cm and 35cm guns with the same turret setup) or an increase in the number of tubes per turret (example: American Pennsylvania class), but both was associated with higher weight.

4.)
It's all a compromise.
A quadruple tower is heavier than a driling but has a higher firepower. But you can't put it high! And, as I said before, in the event of a failure you will have lost a higher percentage of the firepower. The British twin towers are built to complement their quadruplets. (You couldn't install a third quad because of the balance or something)


You could place a quadruple tower very high, depending on the ship's width and tonnage, you could probably guarantee sufficient stability, but of course you try to avoid this in order not to increase the top-heaviness too much.
However, I do not understand why the British did not use triplet towers. The firepower would be reduced by a single pipe with the same number of turrets, but the failure of a single turret would not be so serious.
Okay, with a direct hit on the tower group, both would fail, then one would have even more firepower from the single quadruple tower than with triple towers, but as I said, a single tube with serious disadvantages in my opinion ...

5.)
And the last British battleship, the Vanguard, had the good old 4x2 layout again


However, this has nothing to do with technical or tactical considerations, but with material constraints. Originally an improved King George V-Class should be built, but this failed due to the war.

For the construction of a completely new heavy artillery there was neither the time nor the resources, these could be used otherwise more sensibly.
Such a turret with armor plates, mechanics, gun cradle, pipes and all the trimmings cannot be made \ "just for a moment \".

However, one remembered the 4 towers that came from Couragous and Glorius, the two \ "freaks \" of Lord Fisher, both of which had been converted into aircraft carriers. The towers had been put into storage and now they were being fetched from the arsenal in order to equip the Vanguard with them, the construction of which was therefore entirely determined by this \ "recycling \".
That is why they returned to the 4x2 setup.

6.)
So that about the space required for the boiler cannot be right!


But it is. Towers with a substructure inserted between the boiler rooms have always been a horror for the designers. Wing towers weren't that bad.
At Intereße I might be able to scan in some blueprints for German ships of the line.

The worst representative of the \ "multi-tower principle \" was still the Agincourt, a battleship with 7 towers started for the Brazilian Navy, which was bought by the Turks and finally requiered by England in 1914.

7.)
Boiler: The arrangement of the boiler rooms can also be staggered; not all boilers have to be in 1-2 compartments. Also, the German BCs weren't quite as fast as the British ... but better armored.


The German ships in particular were very heavily subdivided, which I can also use the following table to demonstrate:
Picture: http://haben.lycos.de/sdw86/untertteilung.jpg (picture automatically removed)

Nevertheless, it was of course desirable to have the boiler rooms right next to each other and the turbine rooms directly next to one another.
The armoring and the bulkheads guaranteed adequate protection against failure of all boiler rooms at the same time, while the technology could go much simpler ways, e.g. when guiding the pipelines for steam and exhaust gases.

In terms of speed, the British achieved this primarily through oil firing, which meant a slightly higher top speed and a definitely higher continuous speed compared to German coal firing with additional oil firing.
The British just had to "turn the cock", while on German ships the motto was: "Schipp, schipp, hurray!" approached ...

Nevertheless, in the Skaggerak Battle, for example, the English battleships of the Iron Duke class could not break away from the German König class, despite nominally higher speed, which led to heavy discussions on the English side after the battle.

===

So much for tonight. I'm going to bed now. I am of course happy to be there in the event of further discussions. And if you have any questions, go ahead. In the 1st / 2nd week I can fill you with literature.
So that about the space required for the boilers can't really be right!



But it is. Towers with a substructure inserted between the boiler rooms have always been a horror for the designers. Wing towers weren't that bad.
At Intereße I might be able to scan in some blueprints for German ships of the line.


For now. A long and very informative contribution sdw: thumbs.
In my testimony with the boilers, I referred to the contribution by RainerZufall, who wrote that the ship (especially the battle cruiser) was built around the boilers.
And then I was amazed at the towers amidships. That's why I wrote this.
Do I understand your statement correctly, by "wing towers" you mean towers to the left and right of the center line? And with towers arranged between the boilers, those on the center line amidships?
The wing towers also had substructures, didn't they? And that didn't affect the boiler space requirement?
Super Post, swd ...

Ice marten, look again at the arrangement of the towers ... even with 4 wing towers there is still enough space (either in between or offset) for cauldrons.
Triple towers: As far as I know, it was mainly about the loading capacity of the middle tube, or the complexity of the entire conveyor system, which deterred the British.
Rate of fire: I have to agree with you, swd, but unfortunately I didn't find anything better on the fast track ... in addition to the automatic loading system, it should also be mentioned that the Germans generally used cartridges for the propellant charges, only with "more power" the ones usual silk bags (in addition). Something like that also increases the speed ... just curse the beep
Skagerrak: Not only the speed was discussed, but above all Sir John Fisher's doctrine "Speed ​​replaces armor protection". Especially since most of the damage and losses in the battle were due to shot-up towers and exploded Mun chambers. In addition, the oil proved to be a horror for any fire protection.

Where did you get the tables from, swd?
QUOTE (ice marten @ 06/27/2005, 9:26 am)

In my testimony with the boilers, I referred to the contribution by RainerZufall, who wrote that the ship (especially the battle cruiser) was built around the boilers.
And then I was amazed at the towers amidships. That's why I wrote this.


Okay, then I got it wrong. Whereby RainerZufall's statement is definitely not true.
The German large cruisers in particular were very well-balanced designs.

Do I understand your statement correctly, by \ "wing towers \" you mean towers to the left and right of the center line? And with towers arranged between the boilers, those on the center line amidships?


Exactly.

The wing towers also had substructures, didn't they? And that didn't affect the boiler space requirement?


No. But in order to explain this clearly I will fall back on 3 sketches:

1.) From the Tann
Image: http://träger.lycos.de/sdw86/vondertann.gif (image automatically removed)

2.) King
Picture: http://träger.lycos.de/sdw86/koenig.gif (picture automatically removed)

3.) Mackensen
Image: http://träger.lycos.de/sdw86/mackensen.gif (image automatically removed)

You can see that the wing towers of the Von der Tann are offset so far back and to the side that they at least do not protrude into the central area of ​​the ship, because on the outside there was only the armor and behind it were the coal bunkers as additional " Armor ".
The width of Von der Tann was 26.6m, that of Derfflinger 29m (EDIT: Sorry, this is a graphic by Mackensen, this class was 30.40m wide) and that of König was also 29m.

It is noticeable again that the size of the big cruisers has now exceeded the size of the ships of the line.
With their designs, the imperial navy steered towards a "fast ship of the line", which unfortunately was no longer realized. The "Substitute Yorck / Scharnhorst / Gneisenau" class would have come very close to this "optimum".

But back to the boilers and turbines. Dimensions of a turbine that were installed on the "Grosser Kurfürst":
Largest outside diameter: 3550 (high pressure) or 3370 (low pressure and reverse turbine);
Housing length: 3445 (HD) or 4835 (ND and RW);

The König class had 3 shafts which were all operated with 3 turbines each (HD, ND, RW). To generate steam, there were 12 coal boilers in 6 rooms behind the midship tower and 3 oil boilers in 3 rooms in front of the midship tower.
I do not have the exact values ​​for the boiler at hand, but they were ~ 5m wide, the length does not matter for this consideration.
So you could set up 2 boilers next to each other about half the width of the ship. The remaining 10-12m are enough for armor, coal bunkers and, depending on the location, a wing tower, you just have to arrange them favorably.
However, building around a midship storm is much more difficult, because neither right nor left is there really enough space for a boiler and the deck opening does not exactly provide stability.
Multi-tower ships (more than 5 towers) were not really the measure of all things, even if they could often bring some broadside fire power to use.

Data come from From the Nassau to the König class and from The big cruisers From the Tann to Hindenburg, both books by Gerhard Koop and Klaus-Peter Schmolke, highly recommended but also expensive literature.
QUOTE (sailorGN @ 06/27/2005, 2:50 pm)
Where did you get the tables from, swd?

Self made. I wrote a specialist thesis on the subject of "Fleet arms before WW1 between Germany and England".
Data come from the Koop book about the Bayern class.
Ahso ... write something short (10-12 pages) about the application / non-application of the strategies formulated before the WW1 in D and GB ... in English
What do you need that for? Can you read that?
The strangest tower set-up was probably practiced by the Japanese. See here: http://www.combinedfleet.com/tone01.jpg

Almost all of the heavy cruisers had similar turkey arrangements, but where the point is, I don't really understand.
@swd: For a advanced seminar certificate Sure, if I think it's good enough I can have it ..
@ florian: The British had a similar line-up in the Nelson class, but one tower less.
The illustration shows that there are a lot (!) Of pilots standing on the hill. The Japanese probably didn't want to expose them to the gas pressure of the Ari ... at the same time they probably didn't want to do without Ari either. It is strange in any case, but you hardly have any losses in the total firepower, you can protect the entire Ari with a shorter armored belt (which you also have to do in that case, since a heavy hit can knock out several towers) and you can place the Mun chambers more centrally.
Apparently all island peoples tend to be idiosyncratic and peculiar. It's not good if you are always alone and have no neighbors: D.
Thank you sdw. That was explained very clearly and I can also get an idea through the graphics!
QUOTE (sailorGN @ 06/27/2005, 6:40 pm)
@swd: For a advanced seminar certificate Sure, if I think it's good enough I can have it.

Always bring it to me. : D

By the way, the graphics come from here: http://www.sms-navy.com
First wanted to scan some because they are better but they do it too.
* dug up *

After using the forum's search function, I just couldn't bring myself to bring up a new topic.

In "Battleships and Battleships", Breyer writes that the Bayern class has therefore been given 38 cm twin towers because studies have shown that 6 twin towers have the same weight as 4 triple towers and therefore the caliber was increased.
Until then, I always thought that an advantage of more than 2 tubes in a tower would have been the weight and therefore the 3x3 arrangement would have prevailed.
Am I wrong?
Um, the Bayern class had 4x2 ... in "standard arrangement" 2 towers in front, 2 aft ...
Basically: The higher a tower is built in, the more its weight has an impact on the stability; when firing towards the broad sides, the lever, which can capsize the ship, increases. There is one type of ship that had a main artillery tower below and one of the middle artillery "above / behind" ... I just don't know which one, either French or Japanese.
No, I didn't mean that, although they are good examples ... Although it would have been difficult to plant a third tower on the YAMATO :-)

Oh yes, by the way, with the Yamato you can also see how the roll stability was guaranteed in salvos by large fighters: with the help of a large ship's width
I knew that the Bayern class had a classic 4x2 arrangement and I was not concerned with the arrangement of the towers but with their weight.
More precisely, there is a kind of economy of scale example from Beyer from the French Normandy class (unfinished), weight of a 34 cm twin turret = 1030 t, weight of a 34 cm quad turret = 1500 t, i.e. with 12 guns 6x2 = 6180t and 3x4 = 4500t .
Shouldn't the ratio for twin and triple turrets have been similar, with the same armor and the same caliber?
To be honest, I don't know an exact answer ... but there are a number of reasons that speak against a quadruple, sometimes also against a triplet solution:

Technical: The more pipes there are in the tower, the more / larger ancillary units I need. These are, on the one hand, directional drives and reverse brakes, and on the other hand, the ammunition feed. More about the latter in a moment. The ancillary units either have to be more (for each pipe individually), larger / heavier (for pipe pairs) or alignment flexibility has to be dispensed with. In addition, the interior space and the ring diameter are limited, i.e. the more tubes, the tighter it becomes and the more damage a hit can cause.

Tactical: A less important reason is the lack of opportunities to combat multiple targets at the same time. In the battle line or in 1-on-1 duels, negligible, important in the fight against destroyer / CL swarms. Then there are the problems with the design of suitable loading mechanisms, which work equally well over the entire rotating range of the tower and can feed each pipe individually at the maximum speed (first, as far as I know, practicable solution in the Germany-class triple tower).
Finally, there is the problem of susceptibility to damage: the more pipes, the more hit surface the tower has and the more measures must be taken to minimize consequential damage ...

I hope the suggestions are enough for now
Thank you sailorGN there are a lot of reasons that speak against more than 2 guns in a tower, the only question that arises is why they seem to have prevailed, with all American battleships after the Colorado, with the British starting with the N3 G3 projects with the Japanese at Yamato etc .....
MM I would still think that with a setup of 4x3 or 3x3 more guns are directed forwards or backwards, and thus in combat during a crossing the T maneuver, if you should be the dash yourself and not the bar 2 more guns per ship can judge the enemy. But that's just a theory of mine now, no idea whether that was really a criterion.

General Gauder
The weight advantage for the multi-tube turrets is likely to increase the heavier the armor. In WW1 ships of the line it should be rather lower than in WW1 battleships.
@sailorgn
at the risk of breaking into the ice, but were the iowa class net bb's significantly narrower than the yamato? not to mention the units of the continental states? if I remember correctly, then they all had quite small block coefficients. something around 0.7.

and on the subject of towers of the navy. it wasn't originally about delivery problems. in such a way that drilling towers in 38cm were simply not available?

i can see I'm hardly back from the sea. I already have to dig out books ...

greeting
Thomas
Just as a little idea on my part:

Perhaps the latitude / longitude of the "western" battleships, especially the Americans, has something to do with Panamax, which the Japanese could do without?
Who is comparing?
The idea behind the Yamato was that a response from the Americans would have to be so big that it would not have been able to pass the Panama Canal.
Which also happened to the Montana class.
You're right about Panamax, Grizzly, that was always important to the Americans. However, that hardly played a role in WWII, as there was no real threat to battleships on the east coast (the Germans / Italians had too few or no superior ones and had to pass the British anyway). The only reason would have been the shipyards in the east, as far as I know, most of the large shipyards were there. But we digress

@ Thor: you are also right, the length / width ratio is better with the Iowa than with the Yamato. However, the Yamato also had the larger guns and therefore needed a more robust platform ...
I quote from the WFHQ data sheet for the Dunkerque class

WFHQ

There were several reasons why the decision was made for the quadruple storm. First of all, you could fall back on the technical experience that you had gathered up until then, which allowed faster development and, above all, kept costs low. Another big advantage was the enormous weight savings of the quadruple storm. It had been calculated that two 33.0 cm quadruple towers weighed 4,620 t. Three triple towers of the same caliber would have increased the weight by 1,300 t, and four twin towers would have been 1,720 t heavier.


According to this, triple towers would be approx. 420 t lighter than twin towers.
I don't understand why the KDM came to a different result, has so much changed technically in the meantime ????
One should not forget, especially with the German ships of WWII, that there are many "hush-hush / botch-botch" developments. Often what the Navy would have liked was not installed (i.e. 38cm on Scharnhorst / Gneisenau or the Emden cannons) but what was available. In addition, at least during the time of the emperor, there were the restrictions imposed by the Kaiser-Wilhelm Canal through which the pots had to fit and the sea locks in Schlicktown.

Then maybe a "survival philosophy". The German Navy has always tended to scrape off just as much from a lump of armor steel that it looked like a ship. And four separate towers are more viable than three.

The last point with the "three-pipe" (which incidentally appear in the USN as early as 1938 with the North Carolinas) is the Washington Fleet Agreement. This limits the size of battleships upwards and therefore the weight savings of a triple tower counts and justifies the development of such a new one if necessary. The German Navy has largely whistled on the contracts from Hipper at the latest or shitty where it went and thus sometimes had to worry less about it. The displacement limits can be seen most clearly with Rodney and Nelson (where the British "sawed off" their asses) but the KGV class is still suffering from it.

====

Question about Vanguard: Did the British store the towers of the two light battlecruisers or just the pipes? I always keep the latter in mind

====

Edit: I just looked at a picture of the HMS Agincourt (7 towers). I liked a description of a British destroyer commander when the ship fired a full broadside (main and middle artillery) while Skagerak fired: "It was awe-inspiring, looking like a battlecruiser blowing up!" The British are a bit cynical
QUOTE (sailorGN @ Sep 28th 2007, 4:09 pm)
... but there are several reasons that speak against a four-of-a-kind, sometimes also against a triplet solution:

Technically: The more pipes there are in the tower, the more / larger ancillary units I need. These are, on the one hand, directional drives and reverse brakes, and on the other hand, the ammunition feed. More about the latter in a moment. The ancillary units either have to be more (for each pipe individually), larger / heavier (for pipe pairs) or alignment flexibility has to be dispensed with. In addition, the interior space and the ring diameter are limited, i.e. the more pipes, the tighter it becomes and the more damage a hit can cause.

Further techn. Disadvantages: More pipes mean wider towers and therefore larger barbeds and that means larger holes in the deck, which have a greater impact on the statics. At the same time, the additional pipes per tower increase the mechanical loads on the hull around the towers during volley fire. In order to reduce these problems, only 2 Mun elevators were often used in triplet towers, thus reducing the diameter of the barbeds, at the expense of the cadence.


QUOTE (Anderman @ Sep 28th 2007, 4:35 pm)
Thank you sailorGN there are a lot of reasons that speak against more than 2 guns in a tower, the only question that arises is why they seem to have prevailed, with all American battleships after the Colorado, with the British starting with the N3 G3 projects with the Japanese at Yamato etc .....

The Nevada class (completed in 1916) already had triplet turrets (2 pieces with 14 "). The" all-or-nothing "armor concept was also introduced. Belt armor and main armored deck form the citadel between the front and rear armored bulkheads the area between the front and rear turrets of the main guns, the areas in front and behind are largely unprotected except for the rudder system.

This concept was adopted by most of the countries after WWI. The main reason for this was the maximum displacement (35000ts) of the Washington Agreement.
The use of 3 and 4-ling towers made it possible to shorten the citadel and thus save weight without reducing the thickness of the armor or the number of tubes.

When comparing Richelieu (2x4) and Bismark (4x2; both 8x15 "), the Richelieu has a slightly larger armor thickness and a comparable drive power with a significantly smaller displacement (35000 to ~ 40,000).

The weight advantage should also reduce the amount of material and the time required for manufacture and thus the construction costs.
These advantages have outweighed the technical and construction-related disadvantages in the eyes of most countries.

QUOTE (ChrisCRTS @ Jun 23rd 2005, 4:24 pm)
... The British twin towers are built to complement their quadruplets. (You couldn't install a third quad because of the balance or something)

Not because of the balance but because of the displacement. The "King George" was originally planned with 3x4 in 14 "and with 23 knots. Then France and Italy began to build fast battleships (~ 30 knots). Therefore the speed should be increased to 28 knots. The additional weight of the drive was compensated, in which one of the quadruple turrets was "cut in half." The aim was not to reduce the armor and to roughly keep to the 35,000 ts.

At that time an extension of the Washington Agreement was being negotiated. The British hoped to set an example for the others to maintain the tonnage limit and reduce the caliber to 14 ".
Result: The negotiations failed. The Japanese supposedly built the Yamato with 16 "guns (actually 18"), so the US stayed at 16 ". Well, that was stupid for the British.

QUOTE (Darkwalker @ Oct 22nd 2007, 7:35 pm)
Question about Vanguard: Did the British store the towers of the two light battlecruisers or just the pipes? I always keep the latter in mind

Only the towers were really stored, the pipes went to the spare parts depot and some of them were also installed in other ships.
The pipes for Vanguard were also taken from the spare parts inventory, but were not the same as those that were originally in the towers.
Two more things:

The "Vierlingstürme" with the French were actually twin towers, i.e. two pipes were raised together in height / shared a system and the tower was divided in the middle. Was a "Washington" compromise

38cm gun barrels look pretty impressive when you stand around in front of a museum without a tower. For example in front of the "Imperial War Museeum" in London.



Irony: being searched for weapons by a security guard at the entrance to a museum full of weapons
Hmm, isn't it pointless to consider the WW1 constructions in this controversy? The clever minds who developed the boats have learned from the mistakes of their predecessors and have continuously developed the units.
In general, with the arrangement of the towers, a compromise has always been made between the areas to be armored, which should be as small or short as possible, and the length (and width) of the ship, which should be quite long and sleek.

That is why the 3 towers of the Nelson class were placed one behind the other. This made it possible to keep the whole box relatively short with a very high firepower. But it was found later that it was rather shitty because the 3rd tower could not be raised any further for reasons of stability and weight and was therefore partly useless or ineffective.
The all-round protection and all-round use of the SA was also better given a symmetrical position even if the full firepower was only given as a broadside.

The question of whether two-, three- or four-tube towers was justified by the contracts after WWI. In order to achieve the highest possible firepower with a caliber and weight restriction, you need more tubes or a higher rate of fire. The latter could often only be increased after years due to the development status. The development of newer SA guns was quite time consuming. Therefore, for example, the Vanguard also got the old stored towers / guns, because there was simply no money and too little time for new ones and the old ones had already proven themselves. She probably shouldn't have entered a battle with a Bissmark-class ship. More pipes were easier to design and in order to keep the dimensions of the units within the contractual framework, the disadvantage of the multi-pipe towers had to be accepted. After all, a single multi-tube tower means a great increase in the straightening and stabilization system, an increase in the hit area and greater restrictions in the event of a failure.
The Bismark took the path of high cadence. As a result, 8 guns were completely sufficient to be equivalent or better than the opponent. In comparison, the North Carolina class, the Iowa class or the non-built Montana class as well as the Yamato and Nagato classes perform better or equally. The main opponent for whom the Bismark was built, however, were the English and they had nothing during the entire war that could take on the Bismark in a single battle.
This is a simplified representation of our main content. To see the detailed full view with formatting and images, please click here.