Why couldn't the RN design a decent triple gun mount before and during WW2?
Why didn't OP's mother abort him?
>>65440560Not many countries had triple mounts pre-war, and the ones that were tri-mounts were of larger calibres (generally). It had many drawbacks compared to twin guns and the added complexity (this is the 1930s) was usually not considered worth it. It wasn't that they couldn't, they just didnt want to. The biggest issues were size and weight constraints, especially with the UK signing the Washington naval treaty
The U.S. Navy's use of downward-opening breech blocks offered a significant advantage in making gun turrets more compact.
>>65440560Sometimes I wish that HMS Lion was build
>>65440560If you have a triple and the turret gets hit you've lost three guns. Quads are silly.
>>65440560Because they held back all their battleship research points out of indecision and then at the last moment dumped a bunch of them into the turret mount stat. They leapfrogged triple guns.
>>65440801Can't you say that about doubles as well?
>>65440560Triple gun mounts as secondary weapons aren't really worth it. You're trying to fit them into spare space and triple mounts become increasingly cramps and their muzzle blast affects the other guns.
>>65441032Losing two guns is better than losing three, and spending all the time building a turret just for it to have a single mount in the age of guns is stupid, especially if said turret is to be armored against anything more deadly than shrapnel. The benefits are exponential, as a 4 turreted ship with single mounts only has 4 guns, dual mounts increase that to 8, double, and triple mounts move it up to 12, still a big jump, but not double compared to a twin mount. Its the reason nobody really built quad turrets more than once. Losing 4 guns in a single hit would really really suck, especially if there were only two other turrets on board. I personally think the King George V class battleships were a somewhat poor design in terms of actually taking a hit. Thankfully, battleships were already a dead end at that point so nobody was exposed as dramatically retarded.
>>65440560Because the RN wouldn't be the ones to design it you complete mongoloid? If you done more than 5 seconds of research you'd have figured out that the UK did in fact develop and produce a number of triple turret designs and had extensive experience with them. They just never ordered them for their ships.
>>65440731>downward-opening breechCouldn't the British have just mounted their upward-opening breech guns upside down?
>>65440560>guns elevate independently>tripleThat's not a triple turret, but a three-gun turret.
>>65441448Can't basically all double and triple turrets do that?
>>65441453no, hence the distinction
>>65441453Later ones, yes. Earlier solutions favored simplicity and compactness, leading to there being just one elevating mechanism operating, for instance, a pair of guns.As technology advanced, elevation mechanisms became smaller and the size and mass requirement less pressing as ships grew, which—combined with more advanced fire-control no longer necessarily requiring a full broadside in hopes of getting a hit—made it reasonable to invest in guns operating more independently. In other words, gun systems of the same turret developed to elevate, fire, and lower to reload independently while pointed at the same target.Of course making the distinction is pure autism, as triple turrets kinda fell out of favor ages before the Iowas, for instance. But it's all history now, so in the same bin.A more thorough analysis can be found here:https://www.navygeneralboard.com/triple-turrets-vs-three-gun-turrets-quick-read/t. boat-ism haver
>>65441124>if you have three triples its one third loss og firepower>if you have four doubles and loose on its only one quarterWhy not have five triples though?
>>65440801what a stupid postchoosing duals over triples isn't going to offer significant redundancy
>>65440596why repeat why the world wonders>>65440803objectively, quads weren't better than triplesbut it was worth the attempt>>65441124you need to think in terms of the entire ship rather than one single subsystem, because decisions on one affect many of the othersin the case of triples and quads, they enable significantly more firepower in a hull that would otherwise be confined to just 3x2 guns, and the improvement is exponential since in naval gun combat the winner is usually the one who scores the first hit>why not 4x2because now you have to lengthen the ship, which means broadening the beam to maintain stability, which means increasing the size, which means enlarging the powerplant, and also the required fuel bunkerageyou also then have to extend the armour belt, and extend the armoured deck, and extend the anti-torpedo bulge, and all this not just to cover the magazine but also all the bits mentioned above because again, you had to embiggen the engine room and fuel bunker and probably add a shaft and screw tooand after all that you still would probably lose to a smaller 3x3 battleship>>65441420>They just never ordered them for their shipswutall the British fleet cruisers famously carried triple mounts, very successful ones; and the Nelsons carried triple mounts too
>objectively, quads weren't better than triples>but it was worth the attemptwas meant for >>65440801>Quads are silly
>>65441448I don't even know why you would design a triple turret without independent elevation for the guns. At the very least, it seems like it would be easier and simpler to build the elevation mechanism into the gun itself, so making it so they couldn't elevate independently would be adding complexity.
>>65443712>it seems likeand who are you, to be qualified to judge? where did you study engineering?
>>65441695>objectively, quads weren't better than triples>but it was worth the attempt>*angles you*What are you gonna do now, turretlet boi?
>>65444195>fires my 2x3 A and B turrets at twice the ROF of your 2x4s, what with all the jammingheh, nothing personnel
>>65441695>all the British fleet cruisers famously carried triple mountsI was being a little retarded and misread what OP said though point still stands UK would have the most experience of any nation on triple mounts even in a scenario where they didn't have any on their ships because the UK was building them for everyone.
