Naval Design Question

[Sea Skimmer]

You basically have three issues against wing turrets. The first is vulnerability, you can't have a proper TDS around the base of the turret so the magazine is highly exposed. The second is weight, the above mentioned extra structure to support the weight that is not directly over the keel, and the third issue has to do with accuracy. Wing turrets tended to have magazines that were squished in-between boiler rooms. This meant the propellent got hot, and didn't shoot at the same velocity as the other turrets cooler propellent. This is also a factor in why centerline turrets in amidship positions died out latter on. As a secondary issue, the number of guns on battleships dropped anyway, because cost constraints meant that ship size could not be allowed increase at the same rate gun caliber did. So you had fewer heavier guns.

Eventually everyone began air conditioning magazines anyway, because uniform propellent temperature was essential to accurate gunnery at the ranges of more then 20,000 yards which became standard after Jutland. However I've read of more then one case in which older wing/centerline turret ships had air conditioning added and it was still insufficient to keep them cool. The boiler rooms on steam battleships could easily reach 140 F or even 170 degrees F when closed up for action. The only way the men didn't just drop dead was by being drenched in cold war every couple minutes.

[CaptHawkeye]

Wing turrets were also pretty inefficient for overall firepower vs. space and weight available on a ship. It was pretty uncool to a lot of the designers that no matter how well positioned the ship was at any given time, about 1/4 to 1/3 of its firepower would simply never be available. Is all of that really worthwhile balanced against the stability and protection problems? Not really. Like you said, it became apparent that the trend in ship weapons was heading towards fewer, individually more powerful guns. Which historically seemed to be the case a lot.

That being said, the German Nassau and Heligoland classes were so cool. Wing guns were stupid as shit but man they look cool.

[Shawn]

Wing turrets tended to have magazines that were squished in-between boiler rooms. This meant the propellent got hot, and didn't shoot at the same velocity as the other turrets cooler propellent. This is also a factor in why centerline turrets in amidship positions died out latter on.

The RN must not have received the memo. The G3 and N3 were both designed with midship turrets.

[Shawn]

Wing turrets were also pretty inefficient for overall firepower vs. space and weight available on a ship. It was pretty uncool to a lot of the designers that no matter how well positioned the ship was at any given time, about 1/4 to 1/3 of its firepower would simply never be available. Is all of that really worthwhile balanced against the stability and protection problems? Not really. Like you said, it became apparent that the trend in ship weapons was heading towards fewer, individually more powerful guns. Which historically seemed to be the case a lot.

That being said, the German Nassau and Heligoland classes were so cool. Wing guns were stupid as shit but man they look cool.

The HSF had the benefit of wider slips at their ship yards. This allowed the wing turrets on the Kaiser's ships to be placed farther inboard due to the wider beams.

[Sea Skimmer]

The RN must not have received the memo. The G3 and N3 were both designed with midship turrets.

Yup they were, and they were both highly compromised designs compared to what the RN actually wanted which was a uniform fleet of K3s, with a much more sensible 3-3-A-3 arrangement, 18in guns and 30 knot speed, 12in belt and 6-7in deck armor. But K3 would have needed new dry docks because of her length and the RN realized that wasn’t going to happen. So the 30knot and 18in gun requirements had to be split into two hulls. I doubt the N3s would have ever been built anyway, the G3s maybe, though the historical tiny bit of work done was obviously just a sped up ploy to ensure the RN was building something prior to attending the WNT conference (no one knew ahead of time the US would propose killing all existing construction). It’s pretty much a fact that the aft turret on N3 could not have been used on anything but a near 90 degree angle. Otherwise the 18in gun blast would very quickly rip apart the ship, something Yamato had trouble with anyway.


This is what K3 would have looked like. K2 was very similar but with twin 18in turrets. J3 was a reduced version with 15in guns.

Wing turrets were also pretty inefficient for overall firepower vs. space and weight available on a ship. It was pretty uncool to a lot of the designers that no matter how well positioned the ship was at any given time, about 1/4 to 1/3 of its firepower would simply never be available. Is all of that really worthwhile balanced against the stability and protection problems? Not really. Like you said, it became apparent that the trend in ship weapons was heading towards fewer, individually more powerful guns. Which historically seemed to be the case a lot.

That being said, the German Nassau and Heligoland classes were so cool. Wing guns were stupid as shit but man they look cool.

One thing to remember is predreadnought design. Lots of late model predreadnoughts had substantial wing turrets (as many as six!) for intermediate armament, and no one much cared about the limitation because in the expected 3,000 yard battles, it wasn’t that unlikely that the battleline might be engaged by enemy armored cruisers on one side, and enemy battleships on the other. So those extra guns would be real handy for fending off the enemy cruisers. Of course then we have the USN with its two story turret concept….

These predreadnought designs aren’t more then a few years divorced from all the early dreadnoughts with wing turrets in turn, and militaries tend to be conservative, and before computers you HAD to be conservative with warship design. Physically working out all the math took a very long time. In turn it took a couple more years for the wing turrets to die out. IIRC the last dreadnought with wing turrets laid down is France in Nov 1910, but then the French navy was extra crazy.

Anyway while dreadnoughts also marked a shift to higher expected battle ranges, in the case of the RN at least expectations remained modest, with battle expected at only 7,000-10,000 yards which meant being enveloped from both sides was still a realistic risk. The Russo-Japanese war also provided examples of battleships remaining in action after dozens of heavy caliber hits, and one Russian ship took over 200 hits before surrendering, so more turrets were thought to provide a measure of redundancy. So when you put it in context of 1906-1914 the wing turrets crappy fields of fire don’t seem quite as wasteful as they so obviously are in the long range battles that actually happened. Still dumb, but well, that's true of so much in hindsight. Even the USN which avoided wing turrets on dreadnoughts entirely does not exactly inspire confidence with the Wyoming class turret farms. Triples? IMPOSSIBLE!

Of course, plenty of people did see the light, like that guy Friedmans mentions who proposed a near dreadnought back in 1900 with 12in and 10in triples, and heck the 'all big gun idea' was in fact the default concept for all the early steel battleships and many ironclad battleships too prior to quick firing guns. But just like today military procurement was a mess in the past and political connections mattered far more then design talent. Nothings really changed in 150 years which is why I just kind of laugh every time procurement reform is mentioned.