# 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:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**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, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/41 "2010-12-17T21:00:40Z")
> [@Hypno-Toad](#): > > …it may be that what was considered bulbous back in the Iowas’ day is not so much nowadays. [Compare](http://yamato.kure-city.jp/english/e-yamatohiroba.htm). Much more pronounced - That’s a bulbous bow. Not so much as on a modern supertanker, but still substantially more than you saw on the Iowa, and the Yamato class were laid down two and ahalf years sooner, so it’s fairly clear that the Iowa’s bow was clearly more conservative, considering that large bulges predated her. I still don’t consider her bow to be bulbous by any but the most narrow and persnickity definition. ---
**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, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/42 "2010-12-17T21:14:14Z")
USS _Missouri_ in drydock: > **[Travel & Experiences](https://www.latimes.com/travel)** > > Our writers bring you the most fascinating destinations on the West Coast. [http://www.timryansreelhawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Drydock2-300x240.jpg](http://www.timryansreelhawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Drydock2-300x240.jpg) [![](http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/us_navy_battleship_photos/uss_missouri_bb63/bb63_c.jpg) ](http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/us_navy_battleship_photos/uss_missouri_bb63/bb63_c.jpg) [http://www.navytimes.com/xml/news/2009/10/ap\_navy\_missouri\_dry\_dock\_101409/101509\_missouri\_drydock\_story.JPG](http://www.navytimes.com/xml/news/2009/10/ap_navy_missouri_dry_dock_101409/101509_missouri_drydock_story.JPG) The four _Iowa_-class battleships, together in a rare photo: [http://maquetland.com/v2/images\_articles/Four\_Iowas.jpg](http://maquetland.com/v2/images_articles/Four_Iowas.jpg) The battleship _Wisconsin_ accidentally struck the destroyer USS _Eaton_ in 1956 and had to get a new bow from the USS _Kentucky_, then under construction and later cancelled: [http://www.navysite.de/bb/bb64coll1.jpg](http://www.navysite.de/bb/bb64coll1.jpg). [http://www.usswisconsin.org/General/Pics/H%2056-05-06.jpg](http://www.usswisconsin.org/General/Pics/H%2056-05-06.jpg) Here’s what the _Eaton_ looked like afterwards: [http://www.usswisconsin.org/Pictures/Collision/C%2008%20USS%20Eaton%20DD-510%20Collision.JPG](http://www.usswisconsin.org/Pictures/Collision/C%2008%20USS%20Eaton%20DD-510%20Collision.JPG) [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/USSEatonDDE-510.jpg/300px-USSEatonDDE-510.jpg](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/USSEatonDDE-510.jpg/300px-USSEatonDDE-510.jpg) ---
**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, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/43 "2010-12-17T21:24:45Z")
A bulbous bow didn’t keep this notorious ship out of trouble: [http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/50422384.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=E41C9FE5C4AA0A145A8D52A8CADD9DF00F7D95609BEE337D46E6CC1A8E27389CB01E70F2B3269972](http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/50422384.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=E41C9FE5C4AA0A145A8D52A8CADD9DF00F7D95609BEE337D46E6CC1A8E27389CB01E70F2B3269972) ---
**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, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/44 "2010-12-17T21:32:12Z")
> [@Tranquilis](#): > > [Compare](http://yamato.kure-city.jp/english/e-yamatohiroba.htm). > Much more pronounced - That’s a bulbous bow. Not so much as on a modern supertanker, but still substantially more than you saw on the Iowa, and the Yamato class were laid down two and ahalf years sooner, so it’s fairly clear that the Iowa’s bow was clearly more conservative, considering that large bulges predated her. I still don’t consider her bow to be bulbous by any but the most narrow and persnickity definition. Just because the Yamato has it bigger doesn’t mean that Iowas didn’t have it at all. You’re saying that the Iowas didn’t have a bulbous bow because it doesn’t meet your definition but somehow I’M being narrow? Besides, that modellor forgot the Wave Motion Cannon. You can’t trust him at all. ---
**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, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/45 "2010-12-17T21:38:56Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > A bulbous bow didn’t keep this notorious ship out of trouble: [http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/50422384.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=E41C9FE5C4AA0A145A8D52A8CADD9DF00F7D95609BEE337D46E6CC1A8E27389CB01E70F2B3269972](http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/50422384.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=E41C9FE5C4AA0A145A8D52A8CADD9DF00F7D95609BEE337D46E6CC1A8E27389CB01E70F2B3269972) Browser says I need to log in to that website. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/46 "2010-12-18T17:38:19Z")
The _King George V_-class were planned on the 35,000-ton treaty limits (on the assumption that the Second London Treaty limits would endure) and the quadruple mountings were designed to save enough weight to get inside the limit and give the RN the sort of “balanced” design that it wanted. In practise, the mounting proved too complex and unreliable and the successor _Vanguard_ reverted to double mountings (not least because the desire to reuse mountings removed from the _Courageous_-class). ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/47 "2010-12-18T18:50:55Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > I understand that the USN’s 16" guns were about eaqual to the Yamato’s 18" guns, in terms of penetrating power. > [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > The USN had better fire control on the Iowa’s so in a slug fest the Iowa’s would have more hits. > [@Magiver](#): > > No I was referring to the French battleship Richilieu which had all 8 guns in the front. > [@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? > [@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. > [@Tranquilis](#): > > 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. For those interested in th3ese questions of which ship would be considered overall superior, there’s a great in-depth comparison at [CombinedFleet.com](http://CombinedFleet.com): [Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall – Who’s the Baddest of Them All?](http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm) ---
**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 18, 2010, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/48 "2010-12-18T19:56:58Z")
Sailboat Thanks that was interesting. I was suprised the the South Dakota came out so well. ---
**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 19, 2010, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/49 "2010-12-19T05:18:32Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Browser says I need to log in to that website. Huh. Don’t know why; I just found it through Google Images. It’s a photo of the bow of the ill-fated _Exxon Valdez_. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260/50 "2010-12-19T15:22:09Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Huh. Don’t know why; I just found it through Google Images. > > It’s a photo of the bow of the ill-fated _Exxon Valdez_. Your link works for me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-battleship-question-four-gun-turrets-as-opposed-to-three/564260.md?page=2)