# Another battleship question: four-gun turrets as opposed to three **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 15, 2010, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260 "2010-12-15T18:47:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/21 "2010-12-17T03:58:35Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Were not the 18" guns the limit? I can see a law of diminishing returns-larger diameters mean haevier shell casings, requiring more propellent charge, etc. I understand that the USN’s 16" guns were about eaqual to the Yamato’s 18" guns, in terms of penetrating power. The USN had better fire control on the Iowa’s so in a slug fest the Iowa’s would have more hits. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/22 "2010-12-17T04:27:29Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > If you were talking about the KGV and its class, they had a quad turret in the front and a quad in the stern, and a double above and behind the forward quad, so it would work out six 14 inch for the RN versus six sixteen inch for the USN. > > . > > Declan No I was referring to the French battleship Richilieu which had all 8 guns in the front. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/23 "2010-12-17T05:00:39Z")
> [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > The USN had better fire control on the Iowa’s so in a slug fest the Iowa’s would have more hits. As I understand, they also had a slightly faster rate of fire, and a better ballistic shape to the shells, but each shell had somewhat less penetrating power, compared to the 18.1" shells. In general, the Iowa’s fitout was considered superior by more experts, but not overwhelmingly so. Simple differences in crew drill and experience would have been more than enough to give a decisive advantage to one ship or the other. ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/24 "2010-12-17T05:35:22Z")
> [@Tranquilis](#): > > As I understand, they also had a slightly faster rate of fire, and a better ballistic shape to the shells, but each shell had somewhat less penetrating power, compared to the 18.1" shells. In general, the Iowa’s fitout was considered superior by more experts, but not overwhelmingly so. Simple differences in crew drill and experience would have been more than enough to give a decisive advantage to one ship or the other. Agree ---
**Author:** ![kombatminipig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b5ac83/32.png) [@kombatminipig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kombatminipig)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/25 "2010-12-17T13:37:47Z")
> [@Tranquilis](#): > > As I understand, they also had a slightly faster rate of fire, and a better ballistic shape to the shells, but each shell had somewhat less penetrating power, compared to the 18.1" shells. In general, the Iowa’s fitout was considered superior by more experts, but not overwhelmingly so. Simple differences in crew drill and experience would have been more than enough to give a decisive advantage to one ship or the other. I recall that the US had a fairly advanced fire control radar on the Iowa class. Could the Yamato class have matched it, and if not, wouldn’t it have given the Iowas a decisive advantage? ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/26 "2010-12-17T14:35:53Z")
The [German H-44 class](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H_class_battleship_proposals), which would have sported 20 inch guns, had a design weight of over 100,000 tons. It likely wouldn’t have fit through any German/European waterways or have been dockable at any ports. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/27 "2010-12-17T15:15:00Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Just have to share this photo, a favorite of mine. Check out the water: [http://elsmar.com/pdf\_files/Weird%20Pictures/Battleship%20firing%20guns.jpg](http://elsmar.com/pdf_files/Weird%20Pictures/Battleship%20firing%20guns.jpg) > > I think HMS _Nelson_ was kinda cool-looking, myself: [http://www.maritimequest.com/warship\_directory/great\_britain/battleships/nelson/02\_hms\_nelson\_1939.jpg](http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/great_britain/battleships/nelson/02_hms_nelson_1939.jpg) Really? I mean, it kinda looks like someone stuck some big guns on a barge. There’s no grace to that ship, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/28 "2010-12-17T15:26:54Z")
> [@kombatminipig](#): > > I recall that the US had a fairly advanced fire control radar on the Iowa class. Could the Yamato class have matched it, and if not, wouldn’t it have given the Iowas a decisive advantage? The fire control would have been the advantage Iowa’s, Larger shells advantage Yamato. It would depend who got the first hits in. Yamato takes out the radar fire control first shot Iowa in big trouble. Yamato takes longer to get range and hold range Yamato in big trouble. Like any Naval battle it all depends. ---
**Author:** ![Hypno-Toad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b2d939/32.png) [@Hypno-Toad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypno-Toad)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/29 "2010-12-17T15:33:21Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Yup. This is why the Iowa class has such fine lines, IIRC. (Need the length for bouyancy.) Her hull lines were mainly designed for speed. The naval architects came up with an interesting idea of having a knife-like bow followed by her sides running parallel for a ways before cutting back sharply at the stern. Compare this to previous ships which had a more gradual teardrop shape as seen from above. Combined with a bulbous underwater projection on the bow, this gave the Iowas great speed. There was an optimum set of proportions to get this effect and the one measurement that was unalterable was the width of the ship. This was because of the Panama Canal as others have mentioned. A related situation occured in the naval arms race to WWI. One reason that the Royal Navy began making larger ships was that if the Germans began to match the tonnage, they wouldn’t be able to get their ships through the Kiel Canal cutting across the base of the Danish Peninsula. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/30 "2010-12-17T15:51:09Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > POW was a treaty battleship, to get what the RN wanted, they had to get creative with how they laid out the ship. > Declan That’s right… I was stunned when I first read about those arms treaties back in the day. It seemed strange that limits would be placed on ships. But then, Battleships were the nukes of their day! ---
**Author:** ![kombatminipig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b5ac83/32.png) [@kombatminipig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kombatminipig)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/31 "2010-12-17T15:51:58Z")
> [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > The fire control would have been the advantage Iowa’s, Larger shells advantage Yamato. It would depend who got the first hits in. Yamato takes out the radar fire control first shot Iowa in big trouble. Yamato takes longer to get range and hold range Yamato in big trouble. > > Like any Naval battle it all depends. To further clarify, according to [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class_battleship#Electronics) the Iowa herself engaged and straddled a target at 32.6 km. Supposing lack of pickets and aircraft to spot, did the Yamato even have electronics to engage the Iowa at that range? It is, after all, far beyond range of any optical targeting. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/32 "2010-12-17T15:58:40Z")
I believe that the British RN experimented withn 18" guns, in the 1930’s-they gave up on them , because the guns were very heavy, and the rate of fire slower. I also think that the British had problems with the propellants they used, and judged that an 18" gun wasn’t worth the added weight. It is interesting to note that the only battleships equipped with these guns (Yamato and Musashi) never got to use their big guns against allied battleships-they were both sunk by air attack-the battleship era was truly over. Now for the (maverick) Italians-they chose to mount 15" guns on their most modern class (Vittorio Veneto) -the Italians (Cuniberti et. al.) opted for speed (the Vittorio Veneto) reached 36 knots in sea trials. Having such great speed was seen as a big advantage-but meant thinner armor -the battleship Roma was sunk by a radio-controlled mille/bomb-the deck armor of the ship was insufficient to protect it. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/33 "2010-12-17T16:03:30Z")
> [@kombatminipig](#): > > I recall that the US had a fairly advanced fire control radar on the Iowa class. Could the Yamato class have matched it, and if not, wouldn’t it have given the Iowas a decisive advantage? Those are all part of the overall fitout, and figure into the overall assesment. Which is why, despite having an ever-so-tiny a range deficit, and less destructive shells, the Iowas were still considered, ship-to-ship, to be superior. Just slightly. Armor, range, maneuverability, sea-keeping, and a lot of other factors also count. But, as I mentioned previously, the total combined differences were small enough that a well (or poorly) trained and drilled crew would be a more decisive factor. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/34 "2010-12-17T16:06:17Z")
> [@Hypno-Toad](#): > > Her hull lines were mainly designed for speed. The naval architects came up with an interesting idea of having a knife-like bow followed by her sides running parallel for a ways before cutting back sharply at the stern. Compare this to previous ships which had a more gradual teardrop shape as seen from above. Combined with a bulbous underwater projection on the bow, this gave the Iowas great speed. There was an optimum set of proportions to get this effect and the one measurement that was unalterable was the width of the ship. This was because of the Panama Canal as others have mentioned. > > A related situation occured in the naval arms race to WWI. One reason that the Royal Navy began making larger ships was that if the Germans began to match the tonnage, they wouldn’t be able to get their ships through the Kiel Canal cutting across the base of the Danish Peninsula. I am going off memory only, but I don’t think this class of ship had a bulbous bow. (I see it widens port/starboard somewhat, but not forwards like the Yamato.) Reading wikipedia (as I don’t have access to my books right now), it does look like the longer hull form was for speed, and not bouyancy as I said. My apologies. But for those who are interested in the minutia of [battle]ship design, a taste of that can be seen in the section on design. [Iowa-class battleship - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class) ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/35 "2010-12-17T16:13:21Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > I am going off memory only, but I don’t think this class of ship had a bulbous bow. (I see it widens port/starboard somewhat, but not forwards like the Yamato.) [Observe](http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/0161054.jpg). There is a swell, but that is not properly considered a ‘bulbous’ bow, IMO. > [@kombatminipig](#): > > To further clarify, according to [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class_battleship#Electronics) the Iowa herself engaged and straddled a target at 32.6 km. Supposing lack of pickets and aircraft to spot, did the Yamato even have electronics to engage the Iowa at that range? It is, after all, far beyond range of any optical targeting. No, it was well within optical range. Do recall that the gun directors were mounted well up on the superstructure, even up on masts, for just _exactly_ that reason - the main guns on BBs were very much over-the-horizon even before the advent of radar, and that was thoroughly considered in the design. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/36 "2010-12-17T16:21:04Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > Really? I mean, it kinda looks like someone stuck some big guns on a barge. There’s no grace to that ship, IMHO. To each their own. I actually like the long sweep of the hull and the massing of the superstructure aft. My favorite battleship design is still the _Bismarck_, though: [http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER\_15-52\_skc34\_Bismarck\_pic.jpg](http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34_Bismarck_pic.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/37 "2010-12-17T17:42:31Z")
> [@Tranquilis](#): > > > [@kombatminipig](#): > > > > To further clarify, according to [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class_battleship#Electronics) the Iowa herself engaged and straddled a target at 32.6 km. Supposing lack of pickets and aircraft to spot, did the Yamato even have electronics to engage the Iowa at that range? It is, after all, far beyond range of any optical targeting. > > No, it was well within optical range. Do recall that the gun directors were mounted well up on the superstructure, even up on masts, for just _exactly_ that reason - the main guns on BBs were very much over-the-horizon even before the advent of radar, and that was thoroughly considered in the design. When I read **kombatminipig** ’s assertion, I did some rough estimates. Iowa-class battleships have masts that rise about 50m above the waterline. That gives a range to the horizon of about 25km. But the target rises above the horizon. To see the part of the target that is more than 10m above the waterline adds about 10km to the optical range. So 32km is well within range for ship-to-ship optical targeting. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/38 "2010-12-17T18:03:50Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > So 32km is well within range for ship-to-ship optical targeting. Also remember that battleshps were _very_ tall - The Yamato would’ve had the same 50m (or greater) height extention, looking at the 50m height of the Iowa. Her gun director rangerfinders were very nearly the tallest point on the ship, taking maximum advantage of her height. Yamato had a main-gun range of 42000 _meters_ (vs. the 41622 _yards_ / 38km of the Iowa), and was designed to use every centimeter of that 42km range against BB-sized targets. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/39 "2010-12-17T18:34:57Z")
I wanted to keep my estimate conservative. There’s little doubt someone with a quality telescope could see a battleship-sized target through 30+ km of air. I’m not so sure it’s possible to see a few-meters-wide mast at that range. Of course, seeing the target is not enough, you must also be able to see where your rounds are hitting. ---
**Author:** ![Hypno-Toad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b2d939/32.png) [@Hypno-Toad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypno-Toad)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/40 "2010-12-17T18:55:58Z")
> [@Tranquilis](#): > > [Observe](http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/0161054.jpg). > There is a swell, but that is not properly considered a ‘bulbous’ bow, IMO. I got the following quote [From Here](http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-004.htm): \*Now we come to dodges. The Iowa’s have a pronounced bulbous bow. At slow speeds (where wetted area resistance predominates), this increases resistance due its wetted area and is a disadvantage. However, at higher speeds, it tricks the water into thinking that cross-sectional area is changing much more slowly than is the case and therefore reduces wavemaking resistance. Thus a bulbous bow benefits at higher speeds and is a liability at low speeds. You’ll note that modern tankers have very large bulbous bows - this is because they have very high prismatic coefficients and the bulbous bow tricks the water into thinking that the hull is less bluff than is the case. \* So it may be that what was considered bulbous back in the Iowas’ day is not so much nowadays. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260.md?page=3)