General History: Interwar/WW2 Battleship Turret Layouts
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 май 2024
- As a belated continuation of the previous dreadnought turret layout video, this will cover the interwar and World War Two designs. There are far fewer wacky layouts in this period, admittedly, as most nations standardized on one or two layouts.
Still, worth covering to wrap up this particular history.
Want to support the channel? / sky_t65
Further Reading:
www.amazon.com/British-Battle...
www.amazon.com/U-S-Battleship...
www.amazon.com/Naval-Firepowe...
www.amazon.com/Battleships-Ax...
Timestamps:
0:00 - Introduction
0:34 - Agincourt Explanation
2:40 - Interwar
8:51 - WW2
14:23 - Ending
The British approach to battle tactics was always to aggressively face the enemy and attack - thus rear firing guns would not be of great use as we would never be turning away . This was also why all battleships up until Vanguard had no sheer to the bow - this to allow for dead ahead fire from all forward guns.
Personally a big fan of the 3x3 (2 superfiring forwards, 1 aft) lay out. It just looks aggressive but also not unbalanced.
6 quads would be the ultimate gun lay out if you could get them reliable enough
Actually the Austria-Hungry Tegetthoff class of WW1 DN's used triple turrets as did the Italian and Russian WW1 DN designs though with more turrets.
If you want a truly weird turret layout try to locate the German post WW1 design for a diesel powered 12x12inch gun ship with six twin turrets.
It's possible that the reason Germans avoid triple turrets is because their gun designs require more space per gun, resulting in larger turrets. If you look at their twin turrets, you could probably get three US or British guns in a turret that size.
Yeah, the used sliding breeches like something you would find on a tank, every other navy pretty much used screw breaches for their large caliber guns with exception to some cruisers here and there.
It's interesting to look at the Interwar and WW2 battleships according to their turret arrangement and see how each country arrived at that line of thinking (i.e. France's two quad gun turrets forward). Good video!
I always liked the 3x2 2x3 layout the best (2 barrel turrets superfiring over 3 barreled turrets) for a total of 10 guns. I think had it been engineered correctly, you could have done 14" interwar battleships with that profile but be able to fairly easily upgrade to 16" and you get an extra rifle over the 3x3x3 profile.
Keep them comming
Interesting perspective on the KGVs "weird" 2 x quad + 1 x superfiring twin arrgt of turrets but the key reasons are really quite few and understandable. As though of course the initial aim was for 3 turrets in a (two forward, one aft) conventional layout with all carrying the same number of barrels.
Yet, it must also be remembered that the projected ships were BRITISH + s.t. existing treaty limitations + with HMG wanting to secure further treaty restrictions on std displacement and max gun size too, in the next round of negotiations.
Ergo...
1) You can't just cheat on all or any of the current treaty provisions, 'cos that's "not done"
Despite, of course, by those who're 'obviously' foreigners of the worst type.
Yet, even though you know "the usual suspects" will all likely be doing just that in any case...
2) You still can't just blithely develop a bigger new caliber gun on the quiet and use that at need
'Cos that'd be frightfully embarrassing while you're simultaneously trying to advocate for a smaller max caliber.
See where this is going yet?😁
🚫 Look, here's what the French should've done with the Lyon class. Instead of 4 quadruple turrets with 16 guns, I think it would've been more prudent to have installed the 16 guns in 2 _octuple_ turrets, both of which would've been positioned in a stacked fashion on the stern of the ship. That way they could've filled the entire bow of the ship with AA guns, depth charge launchers, AND retractable mine laying arms on the sides of the ship! ✔️✔️✔️
This way you could chase enemy battleships, while laying mines to destroy enemy supply ships, and taking out enemy submarines with depth charges, all in the same mission! 😉👍
Gee !! Hms Renoun is a nice looking ship. Armour was too thin as built of course, but the design is wonderful. A nice video well put together and spoken.
It's HMS Renown bud, but I agree. I think she's better looking than her sister Repulse or even Hood.
I like battleship with turret (2×4), (4×3) and (4×4)
im not sure how to ask this question ... when you build a ship you build the hull to support what its had when launched .. did they ever do a ship they designed to hold say 4 or 5 main turrets but as built only had 3 or 4 ... so then they could refit the ship into a newer better one in same hull .... like thinking forward ..... does this make sense to anybody??
Nope. Think about it, you would have to build the ship of the final size anyways, so why not just go full tilt anyways and add the extra turret? Other nations would see through the trick anyways given your ship would have to have a suspiciously empty space somewhere where the barbette would be, and just build ships to counter your maximum upgraded ship anyways. The closest i can think of was the US commissioning USS Wichita with only 2 of her 8 secondary battery guns to get her to fit the treaty weight limits.
However, the reverse was actually done. The Italians for example dropped one turret on their second generation Dreadnoughts and used the space thus freed up to install more powerful machinery, which made the ships much faster at the cost of firepower. These rebuilds are some of the most extreme you can do for a battleship though and get so expensive that building a new battleship as a replacement to the old one instead becomes a serious consideration.
Police sirens in the background.