What is the Ideal Number Of Guns on a Battleship?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 авг 2022
- In this episode we're taking a deep dive into the ideal number of gun barrels on a turret and a battleship.
To send Ryan a message on Facebook: / ryanszimanski
To support this channel and Battleship New Jersey, go to:
www.battleshipnewjersey.org/v...
"as a proud american battleship owner" is a sentence so American and so badass
Ryan Zckwyzcykcywzy is a true American.
He only says this to flex on Drachinifel
underrated comment 🤌🏻
I’m with you 4 triple turrets! The Tennessee is a beautiful ship just looks bad ass! The Montana class would have been a total beast!
But I’ve seen the Iowa class at sea as a sailor they are magnificent looking ships.
@@grizzomble Technically Uncle Drach' owns plenty of models, so technically they both *could* claim to be "Proud Battleship Owners"... if ignoring the detail of scale XD
"What is the ideal gun layout on a battleship?" Answer: yes.
HMS Agincourt moment:
Counterpoint: even more guns tho
I thought it was anything you can make more powerful than opponents that you can make work reliably and safely
I try to keep in mind that ships are a part of a fleet, which is part of a whole military system.
If 13 single guns in wing turrets with a flight deck down the middle of the ship makes sense in the doctrine and the doctrine is a successful doctrine then I guess 13 wing guns is a good design.
HMS Nelson has exited the chat
"I, as an American Battleship owner" Can hold authority in any conversation
He’s just rubbing it in isn’t he? Yes, I’m jealous.
Ryan flexin' on all of us
Does the own the battleship?
@@sultanasiddiqui2826 No he doesn't actually own the battleship. He's just the curator. But because he decides how the ship is displayed as a living museum ship, you could say USS Iowa is "his" ship since he cares for it.
Tate: “What color is your Bugatti”
Ryan: “ *What color is your Battleship?* “
“As the owner of a US battleship…” not many can say that!
I’ve always liked the US layout of 3 triple turrets. 2 forward 1 back implies we expect to run to the fight, not away.
Its the "younger sibling" turret. "Stop chasing me. STOP CHASING ME..."
*BOOM*
"I told you to stop....."
You must really like the Richelieu's then.
He's the curator, big difference.
Yeah, that's a pretty big flex.
Evidently the Imperial Japanese Navy liked the idea too, they incorporated the same basic layout into Yamato's design.
As a child, I used to think that the guns in each turret worked entirely together, so in my mind, more guns per turret equaled more power and never considered any downsides. I drew a lot of imaginary battleships with six quintuple-gun turrets (two forward, two aft, one on each side amidships, 'cause why not?).
Slow down there, senator Tillman.
@@wrenchinator9715 Don't stop him, we'll finally get the Montana-class
To get more practical
4 turrets with 3 18 or 2 20 inch guns each
OR! 5 turrets with the same idea of gun layout
I really like the 3 triple turrets. Not as many guns as possible, but it does keep the citadel size down and promotes aggressive fighting
I too like the four triple turrets design. It just looks right and bring a lot of fire power.
If it's just about the looks, I slightly prefer four twins.
The late WW1 Battlecruisers, the Bayerns, QEs, Kongos and Nagato have Imho a very balanced and pleasing look.
However I prefer the US Standard types with the triple turrets to the Colorados. probably because they are so wide that a twin turret looks a little slim.
Agreed, a nice balanced look and tactically sound.
Three Quadruple Turrets looks rather snazzy IMO. KGV was intended to be bult as such, before B Turret was downsized in order to increase armour.
Less room in a 4 gun turret. The turret size would need to be increased to provide room for the gun crew, the size of the ship would need to be increased in beam.
You got to love how much information this man shares with us. Another excellent talk.
Like a TED Talk, without the BS
@@JoshuaTootell a TED talk without BS but WITH BB, if you will
Without watching the video, I'd say probably 8 or 12 in a traditional 2 turrets fore, 2 turrets aft layout. Especially when you start getting into separating fore and aft fire control and allowing the fore and aft turrets to spot shell splashes for themselves. 4 is generally considered the smallest salvo you want to range with, so a single 3 gun rear turret is less than ideal.
Great insight Ryan. It's a shame we never got a see a 4 triple turreted US fast battleship built.
I just love the idea of HMS Furious when she was first commissioned. A flight deck forward of her superstructure where taking off was perfectly fine, but to land you had to fly through the exhaust from her funnel and quickly maneuver to avoid hitting the superstructure and then somehow come in for a graceful landing on the flight deck... oh and then there was a great honking eighteen inch gun on the aft deck making her the most heavily armed carrier ever to be commissioned.
With regards to Ryan's question however I'd say that double or triple turrets in a balanced layout are the most practical because of the throw weight of a broadside and the fact that in a chase you have an equal number of guns fore and aft. Although the Ork inside me gets very excited by HMS Agincourt, mostly because of the dakka potential...
You will paint it red right..... cause red is faster?
Ah yes, the Agincourt, the ship with so many turrets they were named after days of the week. And nobody bothered to change the signage from Portugese, so you needed to know that in order to use the head.
It does seem kind of Orky, with the sheer amount of gunnery stuck on it.
If you like dakka, you should love the Atlanta class light cruisers. Eight turrets of dual 6 inch guns, dual purpose (anti aircraft, anti ship). EIGHT TURRETS. Three up front, three aft, all superfiring so none got in each other's way. And then one each to port and starboard amidships. So OK, you can only bring seven turrets to bear on a target, max, and they're "only" six-inchers, but that's still FOURTEEN GUNS blasting away.
@@saberwing7930 Especially Orky because the guns were just slapped on there any old way with nobody much worrying about the guns being able to face and fire upon ONE ANOTHER
They had to land on Furious? I always thought that these were mostly sea planes that would land in the water and the ships had to pick them up by a crane or something...
Some of the problems come from the hull width needed when you exceed 2 guns in a turret, so a 2+3+3+2 layout might work better.
That was tried on the Pensacola class. It was found that for one less gun they could save a significant amount of weight by having the 3 triples layout.
Or 3 3 3 2
@@andrewreynolds4949 not to mention that the pensacolas were very top heavy by usn standards, which is the other main drawback with putting 3s over the 2s
@@daxlucero2437 If you're putting in 4 turrets you might as well go for 4 triples, since it doesn't weigh much more to add the extra gun. It doesn't save much weight by not having it
@@andrewreynolds4949 which brings us back to the space limitations we aim to work around. 2 3 3 3 doesn't save much weight, but it allows enough space for sufficient torpedo protection in the bow
The (1931) Northampton Class Heavy Cruisers CA 26 - CA 31 - mounted 9 8-inch 55 caliber guns in three triple turrets - two forward and one aft. This layout set the designs for future U.S. heavy cruisers CA, U.S. Battlecruisers CB, and U.S. Battleships BB. Thanks for your video.
i love the look of 4 twin turrets. sleek, symmetrical and much smaller barbettes - the Admiral Hipper class cruisers IMO are the most beautiful ships ever built
Just stay off the Blucher! *horses freak out*
Their Big Twin Brothers have my vote in the Heavyweight class.
@@charliedontsurf334 Did you get that from Abby Normal?
@@chriss2777 You won't be angry?
@@charliedontsurf334 I will NOT be angry
Triple look the best. Quad too complex, twin too simple.
But I do actually like the French idea of a quad, with blow out panels and light armour (splitter/small blast protection between each pair of guns, so smaller turret penetration the knocks out 2 guns and crew on one side probably leaves other pair of guns firing. Then a clean up crew triage clears the wounded and hopefully fixes the first pair of guns. If not too badly damaged.
Quadruple turrets are just so needlessly complex and inefficient though. Twin turrets are super efficient, triples are probably the best balance.
I'm not sure by ww2 that guns were very survivable anyways. Look at the Iowa turret explosion in the 90s, everybody died on the turret regardless of where they were
@@dragonbutt On efficiency, it would be the opposite, Quad is *more* efficient and twins less. Twins require double the armored barbettes, double the magazines, and a longer armored citadel. In terms of mass to firepower ratio, twins are really terrible. As stated, Bismarck had 15,000 tons displacement more than Richelieu just for the same firepower.
@@AsbestosMuffins That was an internal explosion from a faulty powder bag. The ship herself had significant armor on the turrets that could easily protect it from hits from hostile ships. On most battleships turrets are nearly impenetrable from the front and sides. most large caliber gun turrets knocked out we're done in by plunging hits through the roof of the turret.
@@jeanremynoble1798 They are less efficient due to how cramped the turrets are and how complex it is to cooperate and coordinate four guns in a single turret, and the rate of fire reflects that. Barely over 1 round per minute per gun in the Richelieu vs almost 2.5 rounds per minute per gun in the Bismarck.
There is an armor tradeoff for the differences in layout, but its a dual edged sword. All of your firepower concentrated into two turrets vs four means your firepower can easily be halved or eliminated completely vs a well spread out main armament. Just as well, balance of a ship which affects its range, speed, seakeeping, handling, and a whole other mess of attributes, benefit greatly from a balanced, double ended design.
Theres also something to be said about the guns themselves, as they both have the same number of guns, but the bismarcks guns were far superior in terms of accuracy, velocity and longevity. It would not be inappropriate to say its like comparing a shotgun to a hunting rifle.
Its probably worth mentioning that both of these designs fell in favor of the three gun turret for a reason. Its a well balanced choice, and when equipped with excellent guns (like the late war US 16 guns, for example), it is superior to every other layout.
I always find it fascinating that the American’s and Japanese evolved somewhat independently to really similar and similar looking designs. With the Yamato’s and all the US Fast Battleships but especially the Iowa’s having very similar layouts and profiles.
It seems to me that what you have observed is some form of natural selection manifesting itself in naval design. It is certainly no coincidence that the USN and IJN had, at war's end , came to the same conclusion. After the concept of line formation, broadside slugging matches fell by the wayside, a second aft main gun turret became less and less meaningful.
Great comment!
i remember seeing a proposed design to finish the Iowa-class USS Kentucky with 3 quad 8-inch autoloading guns, the same ones found on Des Moines class heavy cruisers, as well as a ton of dual 5-inchers.
I think that might have been better on the USS Hawaii. The Kentucky needs her 16”/50s. The 1980’s navy didn’t bring back the Des Moines because the refurbishment cost was about the same as an Iowa.
Maybe you could even make a quintuple 8inch auto loader
@@philb5593 you better bring along a few freighters hauling ammo for those guns. You could burn through an incredible amount of shells in short order.
@@lonnyyoung4285 Had to look up some figures. 5 barrels probably wouldn't be possible in an Iowa size turret.
But at least the Iowas massive size could hold lots of projectiles and powder. I'd say you can store four 8" shells for every 16", so just over 4,800 shells or 400 rounds per gun.
12 barrels x 10 rounds per minute x 335lb projectile = 40,200lbs
9 barrels x 2 rounds per minute x 2,700lb projectile = 48,600lbs
Those autoloaders were just f'ing awesome with how many rounds they could throw downrange.
@@charliedontsurf334 demoines was lacking deck space for tomahwak and harpoon missiles and sufficient electrical generation capacity or space to add. Either way iowas and other older ships like oriskany/bonnhome richard potential reactivations were just quick ways to get hulls on the water to fulfill the 600 ship fleet. A lot of money spent to refurbish old ships with high operating costs but it broke the russians bank
I like the Standards too, 4 of 3 14s. But what I like the best are the last of the standards, the Colorados with their 4 double 16 inch turrets. They just look sleek and pretty instead of fat and happy
I love that generation of capital ships. The Colorados, Nelsons, Nagatos and Hood are gorgeous.
Love your videos. Ryan you do such a great job with these presentations. Thanks, buddy.
Yeah when I draw battleships I usually go for 4 mounts with either 2 or 3 guns. The secondary is always single or secondary for me. I’m my most extreme was 5 triple mounts. This does help me decide what will be ideal. Great job!
Great episode as always. It's awesome seeing the difference between the earlier videos and these newer ones, Ryan is turning into a natural in front of the camera.
Another great video from the battleship. Thanks
personally i love the 4 triple turret design and layout, although the montana was never built it is my favorite ship
Eight guns in two quad turrets were quite troublesome, especially on Prince Of Wales. And one can argue that the Nelson's layout of three triple turrets all forward was less than ideal, as turret 3 couldn't fire straight forward.
its just such a sexy design tho. 2X4 french layout looks so good imo
@@rohanthandi4903 I understand Ryan's apprehension about the dual quads on the French ship but I think it looks cool if not entirely balanced that well
That'd be a sight to see this massive battleship with four quad 16 inch or even 28"
That would be a beast
The KGV class had a few problems design wise when first built with their turrets and Prince of Wales during the Battle of the Denmark Strait had no time to fix any of them. By the time of the Battle of the North Cape, Duke of Yorks guns worked fine.
The KGV's issue with their quad turrets was in the anti-flash doors tight fit, not the turrets themselves. The flash protection worked fine in port, but not when the ship was twisting in heavy seas as the doors would jam. As DoY's shooting against Scharnhorst in the snowstorm at the Battle of the North Cape demonstrated, these problems were solved.
Neither can the midships turrets so what is the difference
I have only one rule: If it's French, duals or quads no exceptions. In ultimate admiral dreadnoughts on fast modern battleships I use the Iowa or Montana style setup with triples. Provides a nice symmetrical layout.
So happy to see the Success this channel has had!
I love the look off the Richelieu and Dunkirk.
Richelieu is probably the most aesthetically pleasing battleship ever, while its sister ship in its final form is almost the opposite.
Definately a fan of the Austro-Hungarian Tegetthoff class lay-out of four triple turrets. A substantial amout of fire power without having to resort to midships or wing turrets with their far more spread out magazines. Could have used some torpedo protection though!
OwO Austria Hungary had a navy?!
I assumed they were land locked
Woah they had part of what would become Yugoslavia 0w0
I like the design of the 4x 3 gun turrets. It not only allows for the same firepower shooting aft and stern, but it also allows for sailing at an angle where if you need to you can bring an enormous amount of firepower to bear on something and remove it from existence. I would personally throw in maybe a mix of 2x gun 5" gun turrets if space was available to function as both AA and secondaries to bear against destroyers and light cruisers
If I'm playing World of Warships Blitz, I usually use Richelieu since I can fire my entire main battery at a ship I'm chasing or heading straight towards.
If I were designing a battleship in real life, I'd probably go with the Montana class layout. I think that's an outstanding balance between having lots of guns and some of the issues that Ryan raised with quad turrets.
You should do a separate video on different turret layouts and the pros/cons of each one. There’s some interesting differences in many
My ideal layout would be 10x5 twin turrets 3 forward 2 aft in a 15-16 inch barrels for a more streamlined layout lighter weight and faster speed. Even if hit separating more of the fire power limits damage to offensive ability and using smaller /narrower turrets will allow for a battleship on a cruiser hull giving the ship higher speed to out maneuver the opponent’s. Also by separating more turrets in a narrower layout means maintaining suppression fire is more possible as they have more turrets to stage the fire across. By the time the last turrets fire the first is ready to fire again. Ends up being more fire power while maintaining weight and layout for greater speed
Primary issue with this is that the ship would have to be considerably longer. Even if the hull is more narrow, that means less space for certain large components-- such as engines and proper trafficking through the ship. While there are some great pros, the length of the ship would make it considerably longer than the normal expectation, which might actually make it harder to construct-- given that iirc Iowa-classes were already somewhat at the limit of our shipyards, and that we built our warships to be capable of fitting in the Panama Canal, there's a chance that this extra length required would significantly reduce the actual armoring of the ship, especially against torpedoes or high penetrating rounds, and actually make any magazines significantly easier to strike due to the more narrow, cruiser like hull.
Further, in order to get all three guns in the front to fire properly, you're likely going to have to notably increase the center of mass upwards, which also means likely building the ship "deeper". You're going to probably have a lot more freeboard above water and a lot more deeper. Because of the likely result of lighter survivability, the longer hull will make it significantly harder to turn, and won't be able to turn tight at all; while the speed will help it quickly reposition, once that speed is accounted for, it'll probably be an easier target to hit. The higher center of mass, or having a ship that's very narrow but very long, will make it prone to rolling, either being top-heavy or just consistently shifting back and forth quite a bit, more than a normal battleship with its much wider hull.
The length of the ship and the increased depth the hull needs to reach would also probably make it a lot riskier to operate near shorelines.
To be fair, the US did use 5 twins on the Delawares, Floridas, and Nevadas, and the Wyomings had 6 twins.
@@philb5593 ya but they were 12inch and had 3 batteries aft with the center battery blocked at the rear by the final turret. If they used a step layout like the iowas so that all aft turrets could clear each other and moved one aft turret up forward instead with 14inch guns they’d be some serious power but to your point they were top dog during their service until the Colorado class
The Japanese experimented with this idea on a few battleships, but most notably, on the Mogami class and preceding Takao class heavy cruisers, which carried significant firepower in a narrow and sleek package. They mounted three guns on the bow and two aft, with the C turret superfiring over the A and B turret and the B turret superfiring over the A turret at extended distances.
The main issue is that unless you super-super fire your middle turret (which would leave your center of mass dangerously high) you’re going to wind up with a really restricted arc of fire. In addition you’ll be significantly lengthening the length of your ship, which means protection-to-tonnage wise your ship is going to be really inefficient
I’m personally a fan of reducing the number of turrets as much as possible, thereby shortening the citadel in increasing the amount of protection you get per ton. Those three or two turret treaty battleships got a lot of protection out of their limited tonnage because of that
I’ve always loved the New York class, 10 14” guns in 5 turrets, one amid ships. I always thought that looked really cool
It looked cool but the New Yorks always had issues with overheating in the center magazine because it had steam lines from boilers running around it. The Nevadas got the same 10-gun salvo without the center turret.
The New Yorks were probably my favorite US battleships. But midships turrets and "turret farms" are definitely less than ideal.
I am with you there. It gives great survivability in combat given that one hit I unlikely to knock out more than a fifth of your firepower.
Thanks man cool show 😎
Naval trivia: "3-gun" and "triple" are 2 different things. 3-gun is able to have all 3 guns fire at different angles at the same time. Triple turrets have 3 guns that are locked together in angle. Same for 2-gun and double.
Thanks, didn't know that
One other aspect I would like to bring up is the Metallurgical limitations of the time.
Yes you can put as many guns as you want, in whatever configuration you want, however, the stress put on the ships structure limits the firing combination.
As an example, you stated that sextuplet (6) gun design was looked at.
Can you amagine the stress that would be put on the ships structure if you fired all 6 guns at the same time. I can see 2, 4, 6, firing combination, even 3, 6 firing combination
Especially given the treaty weight limits.
Today, we put a man on the moon, we could figure this one out. It would be a special alloy (very expensive) but we could do it.
There is a show called Navel legends.(available on RUclips)
They did a series on the Iowa's.
In it, they explained that the gun is designed first, then the ship is designed around the gun design.
the metalurgy today is better but they had really good metalurgy with the steel they had. we can't even make some of that steel today because we just can't make plate that thick
If you really want to go down the multi-gun rabbit hole, check out the Tillman battleship proposals!
almost as bad as the 1600 foot ship with like 64 coal boilers lol
The Tillmans are what happens when you've asked the same question too many times and you finally get the answer that you asked for, but not necessarily the answer you wanted.
However, who wouldn't want to see an 80,000 ton battleship mounting four six gun turrets?
Who wouldn’t want to see a Tillman showing up? The Navy’s logistics department!
@@andrewreynolds4949 I have a feeling Congress wouldn't like it either once they got the bill.
@@lonnyyoung4285 Apparently the USN actually presented the design to Congress at one point for fun!
A limiting factor in three or Four barrel turrets is not only barbette diameter but also numberof elevators from the magazines. In some triplets only two elevators, limiting firing frequency.
I like the idea of the Montana with her 4 triples. Good balance of 6 barrels front and 6 rear.
I actually have designed my own battleships in Rule The Waves 2. I started out putting as many guns on as I could (once I had docks that could accommodate enough tonnage), 5 4-gun turrets (absolutely immense firepower compared to anything the AI was putting to sea, but they had very thin armor (just enough to protect against cruisers)). I ended up scaling back to 4 3-gun turrets so I could use more of the displacement to add speed and armor. And I rarely ended up going above 15-inch guns, despite guns up to 18-inches being allowed, since 15 inches already out-ranged my visibility even in clear weather and had plenty of penetration to deal with most enemy battleships. So I ended up settling on 12 15-inch guns in 4 3-gun turrets as the ideal on my own through trial and error. But the simulation isn't perfect and every RTW player has their own preferences, so my opinion is hardly definitive. Perhaps with an even more realistic simulation or different restrictions I would come to a different conclusion.
I’ve always been a fan of the design of the Japanese BBs, just kind of random. Be it the design of the Kongo, Amagi, Fuso, Nagato, Tosa, Ise, or the Yamato’s.
I’d love to see a video going in depth on the IJN battleships or their designs!
USS Wyoming (BB-32) and USS Arkansas (BB-33) had 6 12-inch twin turrets, and USS New York (BB-34) had 5 14-inch twin turrets and USS Texas (BB-35) has 5 14-inch twin turrets.
Awesome. Thanks. I wonder how much the non-standardization penalty would be for a 2&3 forward and a 3 aft would be. The obvious pros would be better lines &depth of forward protection, a bit of weight savings. The Godzilla sized drawback would be one less barrel. How big of a pain for building, operations, etc. would multiple turret and barbette sizes be?
Great video as always!
I personally enjoy the original design of the North Carolina, but like the 16 inch guns as well.
The North Carolina is a beautiful battleship that packs a lot of firepower for her weight
Hi all, I'm becoming a full on addict to Ryan's channel. Always full of thoughtful detail. I had a question: as a kid I had a model battleship that was a 3, 2, 3. After watching this it seems like it could have been a class near the end of WWI. Any ideas what it could have been?
More!
Radar and leadership were the difference. The USS South Dakota was rendered blind due to power failure in night action against the IJN Kirishima while the Washington pummeled the Kirishima with radar controlled fire. Battleship combat became fighter combat; who sees the other first, exploit any tactical advantage like position or speed, aim correctly and hit the opponent with opening salvo and the opponent is done.
The South Dakota’s chief engineer was to blame for forcing down all the circuit breakers. They put those things in for a reason.
Agreed. Same tactics in tank battles.
Personally, it's probably the three gun, three turrets, although an argument can be made for 4 turrets.
Reasoning as follows. THE BELOW IS MY PERSONAL OPINION. It also doesn't take into account how changing the physical weight of the turret/guns would impact other things, like speed and armor thickness.
This opinion is based around a control of the 3x9 16"/50-cal guns of the Iowa class (cause I'm American, so bias toward them)
There's only so much space you can have. The larger the guns the more space you need for each turret, and the heavier (and larger) the whole ship would be. Yamato pushed the limit with 18 inch guns. Anything else, and you wind up with a ship which requires some serious rewriting of your logistics (in the modern day, we might be able to get away with larger gunned ships with how big cargo ships/aircraft carriers are.
Going in the opposite directions,
Less guns per turret for a larger calliber.
Or
More guns per turret, but of a smaller caliber.
This would more depend on statistics of probability.
More chances to hit, but do less damage per shell, or less chances of a hit, but with more damage per shell.
Honestly, I do think that the 3 gun/ 3 turret kinda fits nicely in between. An adequate number of shells in the air, crossed with a large enough object to cause significant damage on a hit.
It's a question of whether it's death by a thousand cuts or a single strike.
But again, that's just my personal opinion.
Isn't that all American fast battleships except the montanas
I think either 9 15s or 16s, but I was also fond of the 12 14s in the Standards
HMS Agincourt. 14 main guns !
USS Mississippi - Battleship used as a training ship after WW2 and even a Missle Battleship - Used until 1956: From Wikipedia:
Upon arriving in Norfolk, the ship was converted into a gunnery training ship, and was assigned the hull number AG-128 on 15 February 1946. In some references her hull number is given as EAG-128. The initially planned armament as a training ship differed somewhat from that actually installed. No. 1 turret was replaced by a twin 6-inch (152 mm)/47 caliber dual-purpose turret, the same as mounted on the Worcester class light cruisers. No. 2 and No. 3 14-inch turrets were removed, but No. 4 turret was initially retained. Three twin 5-inch (127 mm)/38 caliber dual-purpose mounts, two single 5-inch/54 caliber dual-purpose mounts (as on the Midway class aircraft carriers), two twin 3-inch (76 mm)/50 caliber mounts, and two 40 mm Bofors quad mounts were installed. Additional weapons proposed but not equipped included two twin 5-inch/54 caliber mounts and two twin 3-inch/70 caliber mounts, but the twin 5-inch/54 mount (originally for the Montana-class battleships) never entered service and the 3-inch/70 mount was not ready until 1956. Also, a triple 8-inch/55 caliber rapid-fire turret as on the Des Moines class heavy cruisers was proposed in place of No. 3 14-inch turret, but this was not equipped. It is unclear if a proposed mixed 20 mm Oerlikon battery of quadruple, twin, and single mounts was installed.[19]
Mississippi was reconstructed at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard from November 1945 through April 1948. During the yard period she served as the flagship of the operational development force from 18 March to 15 May 1947, and as the flagship of Battleships-Cruisers Atlantic Fleet (COMBATCRULANT) from 11 June to 14 July 1947. In April 1947 she effectively replaced Wyoming as an anti-aircraft training ship, with Wyoming mooring at a pier across from Mississippi and the bulk of Wyoming's crew "cross-decking" to Mississippi.[19] After emerging from the reconstruction, she served in the operational development force, carrying out gunnery tests and helping evaluate new weapon systems.[5] The ship had two new RIM-2 Terrier missile launchers installed in 1952 with No. 4 turret removed, the work being completed on 9 August at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. The first test firings of a ship-borne Terrier missile took place on 28-29 January 1953 off Cape Cod.[20] Mississippi later tested the Petrel missile, a radar-homing weapon, in February 1956. On 17 September, Mississippi was decommissioned at Norfolk, sold for scrap to Bethlehem Steel on 28 November, and subsequently broken up.[5]
I'm a fan of the Tillman IV-2, with 15 18" gun barrels in five triple turrets. It only has a top speed of 25.2 knots, but with WWII radar, could kill anything, even a Montana.
On the other hand, the Tillman II, with its 24 16" guns in four six-gun turrets could throw quite a bit of steel....six-gun turrets for the win.
Only downside with the speed is that you can only kill what you can catch
@@nicholasresar True but think about the unholy level of shore bombardment capability…
“Xo, Do you see Mount Suribachi over there?”
“Yes Captain”
“Well I dont want to”
“Deleting nearby geography in 3 2 1..
I would venture with the super heavies designed for the fast battleships, Montana’s broadside would be very close if not equal to a 15x 18” Tillman battleship.
I personally like idea of the battleships with wing turrets. As such, my ideal layout would be six twin-gun turrets. Have a relatively short and bulky shape with a raised centerline turrent front and rear, with the wing turrets relatively close to the ends on a lower deck, though still between the centerline guns. As such, by approaching the enemy at a certain range of angles, you have up to five of the six turrets firing. It's not perfectly optimal the way centerlines tend to be, but it sounds neat in my head.
The problem with wing turrets is you lose on broadsides. Cross-deck firing is *very* limited in its arcs of fire on the opposite side, and the blast effect of firing large guns over your deck and between elements of your superstructure does nothing good to your ship. If you don't have cross-deck at all, then you're carrying say 12 guns for an 8 gun broadside. That's why they stopped building ships with that arrangement really qucikly after HMS Dreadnought, (which had wing tutrrets) and all centerline guns became the only layout used for second generation Dreadoughts up to the fast battleships.
I love the 3 gun triple barrel design. The iowas are my favorite
Ok, if you look at the side profile of each class of battleships, as the classes progresses you can see the superstructure is moved aft with the less turrets and triple barrels. Weight and balance comes into play with the heavy turrets and the main engine placement. Along with the weight restrictions we had when the different classes were evolving. Remember Weight and Balance plays a major roll on how the ship reacts to heavy seas and to allow the weight in the bottom to right itself on an even keel after a roll or when the ship is perform hard maneuvers at high speeds. My opinion! Lastly the amount of gun barrels doesn’t matter, the caliber is what matters!
Ideal number and caliber? USS Montana, twelve 16"/50's.
Well, that is dependent on multiple factors,
Sextuple or Quadruple isn't the most practical whereas Twin or Triple are the best
K2, L2, M2 and F2 were the only post-World War 1 designs that the British Empire had devised using twin turrets
the British Empire using twin turret design up until Hood is understandable given the British Empire didn't have a triple turret design plus they didn't trust it as it was unproven and too risky
Only after her do the Royal Navy move to a triple turret
There's also the fact that when you're building multiple classes of at least three or fours ships, as Britain was in 1906-1916, a twin turret is going to be more appealing due to the more simple construction and lower cost, as individual firepower for a ship is less of a concern because they are going to be operating with a large number of other battleships, while when you're limited on how many battleships you can build it does encourage the use of triples, as well as various other technologies, to increase the effectiveness of the individual ship (not to imply that the British were behind the US technologically, just that when applied to main guns they took a different approach)
Designing a 3 gun turret is much more complicated then a twin turret. A twin turret the ammunition and powder hoists are pretty easy to design in. That third gun in the middle now you are having to sneak in a complicated series of hoists that doesn't get in the way for the middle gun. Not to mention how individual sleeves and elevation gear added to that (One reason early US. triple turrets had single sleeves and all elevated together and were too close together to fire all at once without impacting accuracy)
The royal navy could also just bring two ships if they needed more guns.
Pack tactics
The RN actually did have designs floating around for triple turrets floating around since at least 1910, and earlier I think. It was speculated in that discussion that the reason it was never implemented in that era that it was too much of a radical change in design during a period when there was significant pressure on the RN to produce reliability and numbers. After the war their designs quickly took up triple turrets because of the weight savings they can provide.
I'm a firm believer in Maximum Firepower, so my ideal battleship gun layout is 4 four-gun (not quad) turrets. Turrets are mounted on centerline with two turrets forward, two aft of the superstructure, turrets 2 and 3 are superfiring. Basically a Super-Montana with sixteen 16 inch guns.
Makes sense considering the planned Montana class was a 4x3 406mm main gun layout. Thing is I'm not sure if it would be a "fast" battleship at that point, which was really important for the SD/NC/Iowa class ships.
I do not like the quad turrets at all. I like the triple barrel design of the US battleships in either the 3 or 4 turret layout.
I think the Montana's would have been pretty badass if they'd been built.
Especially considering they'd have had Des Moines-style fast-reloading, plus air conditioning so the crews would have been less fatigued.
Division of fire and shell spotting is important when firing. That's why I prefer 4 twins. Neat, comfy 4 gun salvoes for ranging, split by turrets fore/aft, or 1 of each turret, whatever you prefer. Or 2 4 gun groups fighting individual targets. And 4 splashes is just the right amount for spotting.
Also no worries about interfering with some middle gun.
Two points I think Ryan has noted in other videos, firstly it’s not just about calibre but also barrel length (longer giving more muzzle velocity and a slightly higher projectile weight). I believe the USN preferred shorter but bigger calibre guns.
Second, the British KIng George V class was a ruthlessly cost effective design, even if no one’s aesthetic favourite. Had the money been there to do a longer hull with an additional twin 14” in X position (ie 4-2-2-4), that four turret design would have mitigated the impact if one turret jammed or was knocked out. Importantly, it would have been very top weight efficient layout with lots of space and weight left over for the AA armament.
im thinking the right number is... as many as you can with out tipping over wile turning the ship (coff coof Spain coff coff) or sinking from the shear weight. i think the prefect amount is what ever it takes to shift the ship sideways when firing all the main guns at once. oh wait, isnt there a pic of the New Jersey doing that? ; )
The picture you are thinking of is not the guns pushing the ship, but pushing the water away with the shockwave while the ship pretty much stays in place
@@andrewreynolds4949 I did not know that. all the sorces i found said the ship would shift 6-20 feet latraly. thank you for the correction :)
@@jimbo1278 I think Ryan did a short video on that picture a while back
@@andrewreynolds4949 ohhh i havent seen that one yet. thank you for the heads up! :)
@@jimbo1278 Found it again! It's from a while back: ruclips.net/video/7bUOCXHO3eU/видео.html
IMO...
Best design: Richelieu; and I think she's also a good-looking ship.
Pure aesthetics: Scharnhorst, with the second bow, of course.
Imo, with no ship size limit, the 4x4 gun turret layout kind of rocks. 16 huge guns is just such an awe inspiring amount of firepower for one ship to bring to bear.
“I as an American battleship owner” love it Ryan
The best layout is obviously the "de feo" layout with all main gun in between the fore and aft superstructure, then the guns are spaced to each other similar to the nelrods. Then cruiser guns for and aft as secundary battery
Pro: that excell at line comabt as mid line ships
Short citadel
Con: nothing. /s
I really liked the idea of the "unbuilt" Montana class. 4 triple turrets were really balanced. 2 fore, 2 aft. I think it made the most equil use of the ship. The turrets on each end could act as fire teams, & assist each other. My question is, how many men would it have taken, to operate a Montana class ship? I think that's where the limitations start to show up.
2700 or so. I can't imagine that was not doable
Add the number required for an Iowa turret to it, and add a few ten to the crew. I guess that would be it.
I personally like the two quad turret layout because it is the only way to have an all forward layout with a reasonable amount of guns (and all the guns actually being able to shoot forward). Although you lose a lot of your rearward firing angles, it lets you more often position your ship with a significant angle to an enemy ship, helping to increase your armors effectiveness without losing any firepower. Of course there are other downsides as Ryan mentioned (huge barbette, risk of losing half your firepower from one unlucky hit) but I think the tactical benefits combined with the weight savings could be well worth it.
Also, the Richelieus are some of the best looking battleships ever built, second only to the Littorios in my opinion.
Beam was an important consideration, as modern American battleships needed to fit the Panama Canal. When, e.g., the Tennessee was fitted with extra torpedo armor, it could no longer fit the Panama Canal. Four gun turrets may well have required to large a beam for the Canal.
The canal's been widened since those days. Would be interesting to do a Panamaxed battleship design now
Fast and triple 16” gun turrets. Montana layout with four turrets is great. OR four double 18” gun turrets if you get a benefit from increased range but 12 guns versus 8 is a better layout
Hi, I was interested in how modular an Iowas turrets are? If plans to convert the Iowas to battlecarriers has gone ahead straight after the war could the single rear turrets have been taken off the Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri and Wisconsin and then placed into the two forward barbettes of the Illinois and Kentucky hulls to ultimately create six battlecarriers? Would turning a rear turret into a forward turret be more complex than simply spinning it around 180 degrees and dropping it into the barbette?
As a super firing turret, Turret 2 is one deck taller than 1 or 3, so that's different. I don't know any more than that.
@@philb5593 Yeah I wasn't sure if the barbette for the superfiring turret is the same height of the others and it just starts a deck higher in the ship or if its actually a longer turret?
The barbettes are heavy enough on battleships that it’s not practical to lift one out in one or two pieces. Usually they would be dismantled and lifted out in sections. I suppose you could reuse portions of the turrets, but it’s not a straightforward process of lifting out a turret or setting one in.
The main problem with battlecarriers is there’s a direct conflict of role. The carrier’s role is to stand off and launch strikes, and that requires lots of lesser-armored superstructure. The battleship’s role is to get relatively close and shoot stuff, and be able to survive hits in return. A battlecarrier would have a large, more poorly protected superstructure full of very flammable materials that makes an excellent target. Either the citadel is so large as to cripple the other aspects of design, or the hanger and flight deck superstructure is insufficiently protected and vulnerable to heavy damage in a fight. That’s why none of the many battlecarrier designs were ever built, apart from half-baked IJN conversions done out of desperation.
That said, I do find the old hybrid carrier designs fascinating. I think it would work better as a cruiser-scale design. Something like a Tone-class or a half Town-class with extensive aviation facilities aft would make an excellent scout, heavier convoy escort, or especially surface raider. The most practical design I have seen though has to go to the USN hybrid CVE/oil tanker, conceived for convoy escort.
@@andrewreynolds4949 Drachinifel has been doing vidoes on the American fleet problems of the 1930s, and the 8 inch guns of Lexington and Saratoga proved to be very useful. However at that time there was no radar and aircraft range was much less, so carriers bumping into surface forces was more common. And the carriers did not have a permanent escort. An escort of heavy cruisers allows the carrier to always run.
By the time the IJN build their battlecarriers the era of big guns on carriers and big guns in general was over. Battlecarriers or big guns on carriers may have made sense in the 30s but not after radar, long range aircraft, and better escort.
I have always had a liking of the Japanese layout of 5 double 410mm guns of the Tosa, Amagi, and Kii classes of capital ships. Had they been built they wold have been very strong ships.
They did trade their speed and firepower for less armor than their contemporaries. Nice looking ships
My fav gun layout in terms of aesthetics was always the x5 double/triple turrets turrets you see on WW2 Japanese heavy cruisers or the Worcester class. I like the look of super firing and non-super firing guns on the same ship.
Hey, you skipped over the most American answer of all--the Wyomings with secondary armament built into the main turret . . .
Or what about the pre-dreadnoughts with turrets on top of their turrets? :)
I also like have 4 turrets with 3 guns each. I feel like a New Mexico or a Tennessee has a significantly greater chance of a hit over a Queen Elizabeth or a Bayern with 4 twin 15” guns. Yes each hit isn’t as hard, but battleship hits are in the single digits anyway. Range isn’t what they thought it was in World War I either particularly if you are under Beatty’s command. The Scharnhorst (11” guns) shares the longest ship to ship with with Warspite (15” guns).
If I have a 35k tonne weight limit I say go with 3 turrets with 3 guns each. I disagree with the argument that you lose 33% of your firepower if you lose a turret. You aren’t looking at it right. If you lose 1 turret when you have a 3x3 you still have the same number of guns as if you lose a turret in a 4x2 layout (6 guns in both cases). But you now have the weight savings to make tougher turrets to lose them less.
That’s my opinion.
i also like the 4x3 design, although the montana was never built that design is so awesome
Gotta love a Nelson for being an example of doing something way different and making it work, though I believe there were a lot of issues with the guns not being able to fire all at once without damaging the bridge but its a unique layout
I can't decide between South Dakota/Iowa layout or the Montana layout-they both look killer!
I really like the Iron Duke design of five twin turrets, 2 forward and 3 aft. Cool looking but really impractical, to use them all you need to be at a full broadside so in a pursuing action only 4/10 guns can be used.
Most actions of the time were broadside, so it was considered acceptable
I'm a fan of the quad turrets fore and aft with superfiring twin turrets. The larger barbette for the quad turret is offset by the smaller barbette of the twins, giving decent magazine space deeper in the ship vs a larger turret #2 barbette. The superfiring turrets being twins reduces topside weight to give a top heavy ship a bit of breathing room, allows the quads to have greater arcs of fire for shooting "over the shoulder", reduces blast pressure on the superstructure in a full salvo, less leverage on the barbette and hull when firing, and can spin more nimbly for getting ranging shots off quick while the larger turrets are rotating. The cons are greater firepower loss if one of the quads are hit, cramped conditions for the mid barrels, a more blunted bow and slower speed due to the most extreme turrets having the largest barbettes and engineering concerns of running shafts past the large barbette near the stern (can possibly be overcome by electric drive for the inboard props).
I've always thought that the 4th turret gives a more balanced look, but at what cost?
If they had chosen to ignore the weight limit of the treaty and stretched the ship to add the extra turret, the ship would have been longer, with a larger tactical turning diameter. The extra turret also means more crew (and crew-quarters), and a bigger engine to maintain speed with the extra weight. There would have been fewer dry-docks capable of repairing it, and it would no doubt have been more expensive to build, particularly in regard to the additional infrastructure. As a result, it's not such a stretch to imagine that they would only have completed three ships instead of four. That would mean the same overall firepower until one considers that there is generally one ship out for refitting at any time. Thus, three four-turret ships would actually have a total active firepower less than the four three-turret ships as built.
Conclusion - they probably got it right by only including three turrets on each ship.
Within the skin of the ship you have more options forward of the reduction gears, shafts, and screws than aft of them, which means fewer options/more compromises when a fourth turret is added aft of the engineroom(s). Just a thought.
Ok - I got to be different - Look at the Pensacola class cruisers- 2 triple turrets - then 2 double as the superfiring- perhaps slightly less weight higher. - do the equal fore an aft. Next the question - single or two stack. Single -better arch for AA guns- less weight higher? If 2 stacks - perhaps easier for engineering plant layout- if so could get some larger turrets admidship - maybe 2 twin 6 inch versus 5 inch mounts there. I'd insist on the 28 knots speed. Oh - stick with the main deck continious whole lenght - not forecastle deck the stern deck as the Colorado was.
I like the New York class, with two turrets up front and three in the back, aka the Freedom Sedan.
I quite like the twin-turret layout used in some pre-Dreadnought and early WWI battleships particularly the twelve 12 inch cannons divided into six turrets: two forward turrets, two aftward turrets, a port turret and a starboard turret. This allowed a broadside from ten cannons, eight cannons if chasing or eight cannons if fleeing.
Their secondary armament were 10 inch cannons divided up into a sponsons and single cannon turrets, again arranged in a way to provide as equal firepower as possible for broadsides, fleeing and chasing.
Personally, I think the major powers could have fielded more battleships/battlecruisers if they used this type of layout during WWII. Smaller vessels means more material. More material means more vessels. More vessels mean you can outnumber an enemy fleet.
I’d have a tough time picking between “best” and “favorite”, because sometimes the quirky layouts are fun if impractical. I like the Wyoming for this reason.
I think I like the 3-2-2-3 layout just for the quirkinesses, without being too impractical. I guess you’d need like 16” or 14” guns and a late WW1 era timeframe for this to make sense.
Honestly, my favorite loadout looks-wise would probably be taking a note from dreadnoughts and having a 1-2 main gun turret layout in the front. A single turret toward the bow backed up by a pair of turrets side-by-side behind it. Gives it a pretty solid amount of frontal firepower that reaches quite a bit to port and starboard. The two paired turrets provide a bit of coverage towards the aft and together they can counter "crossing the T" tactics. The primary downsides are weaker broadsides and the off-center guns probably being a headache to integrate into the ship and to balance out.
For a more realistic design though, I love the Dunkerque/Richelieu style quad gun frontal turrets, with the Nelson being a close second. I guess I just really like front heavy battleships like that, all in all ^^'
11 guns in a 2-3-3-3 layout this overcomes the cramped below deck issues and allows better front on bow armour for magazines
Hi Ryan. Interesting question. My battleship would sport a 4 turret / 10 barrel solution. One barrel more than on the Iowa class and only two less than on the Montanas. A twin turret superfiring a triple turret - front and aft. This would result in a lower centre of gravity, creating a more stable platform - compared to the Montana class. Also a twin turett needs only a smaler barbette and smaler magazines for an equal number of rounds per barrel. This leaves room to shift the magazines of the triple turret towards the centre of this ship and would allow for a shorter citadel.
Weight of the Colorado class broadside is slightly heavier than that of the New Mexico class with four less barrels. One point to consider is that earlier triple gun turrets is that their guns were all in a single sleeve, so that all barrels in the turret had to be elevated at the same time. This was the case with the triple turrets on the Nevada-class battleships.
Very late response. 3x3: the issue with the forward magazine weakness is not a light one, and USA got lucky not to lose battleships underway. Especially considering the Japanese torpedoes.
4x3: well, the issue is how much steel & manpower one has to spend on a single ship. Also 2 superfiring turrets adds a lot of top-heavy weight.
The French got it almost right with the Richelieu's, the Gascogne would have been an improvement: switching one of the turrets to aft would have balanced the firepower, the aft turret would not have needed to be super-firing, etc.
For the displacement limitation, an excellent design (but never built).
Historically, quad-turrets have suffered accuracy issues. Although perhaps those could have been resolved over time.
I think to respect the narrow front & need to have torpedo protection, it could have made sense to go 2x2 or 1x3 upfront, and go rear-heavy with the guns. but that would, frankly, have looked ugly.
For old school, X3 (or X4, if there's enough room) 3-gun turrets. If it's a "modern" battleship, it would be a X2 (or X3, if enough room permits) 3-gun turrets.
I believe I saw USS Iowa near the Brooklyn bridge in 1984. I'm a brit but Iowa class are my favourites, plus they look good ;)
as a ultimate admiral dreadnoughts player i can confirm: more guns = more better
My battle-carrier has 5 turrets, all triple. Since I also have to work with a carrier deck, it put 3 on port, 4 on starboard, & 5 aft. She's over 200ft wide for a reason. Her sistership however, a true BB has six, adding turret 6 aft, since she's a converted Battle-carrier. The idea is to give a full 360° firing ark.
I loved the IJN Fuso for looks but it's citadel must have been absolutely massive.
More. Always more.
See you Saturday!
It is very interesting and there is a lot of aspects to consider. The Germans found for actual effective gunnery 4x2 was best for delivering the most amount of shells on target at a particular range within any given time. The reasons being are quite involved and hard to explain briefly. Hits per turret weight is another aspect to consider though. The British also found that the difficulty of salvo rate with triples particularly difficult as for some reason all the guns needed to be loaded together but were fired alternately in different salvos. But that can also just be a measure of a design flaw with Rodney/Nelson rather than anything inherently wrong with the actual layout. They also found splitting the salvo 6-3 to be awkward. That is not to say that they were not effective and did have other advantages in other areas like a reduced citadel. I also like the idea of 4 triples and doing away completely with secondary armament. Waste of weight as what hits were scored on any thing with them. Only purpose for secondary I think should be heavy AA and weight saved to making primary armament heavier. My choice would be 4 triple gun 15in turrets in something of a hull form of Hood. Cutaway stern keeps turret x low with now high heavy barbette. Also would use short barreled 15in guns as turret weight is heavily influenced by the caliber length. Then with Hood hull form with updated machinery ie 2000+ tons lighter and less space needed, could shrink the citadel and fit four triple turrets. 32knots, 12x 15in guns and well protected.
The IJN also liked the 3x3 turret layout, and double-downed with the 18” Yamato-Musashi Class.
I like the Colorado Class with their casket-like quad twin turrets.
The Japanese particularly liked the 5 twins arrangements. Too hard to fit that with 18” guns though