We’re watching In Harm’s Way (1965). Some Japanese ships have three forward turrets, I recall that as a pre-adolescent, and now today, I did not understand why the middle turret was higher than the #1 or #3 turret. You can see the arrangement on Yamato, but the ships (models) in the movie were smaller.
Why were they arranged that way, as opposed to low front, middle middle, and higher rear turrets? Is it because an intermediary height would have added too much weight?
The goal evidently was to simply to make it so that the guns on all three turrets can be brought to bear without hitting the adjacent turret as the turret rotates. Assuming the spacing between turrets is not changed, that can be accomplished by elevating the middle turret only.
There is no reason to raise the aftmost turret as well unless you want that turret to be capable of firing dead ahead (0 deg relative bearing) over the top of the first two turrets. And as you note, elevating the aftmost turret has significant drawbacks, like adding a significant amount of weight. It also makes the ship that much more top-heavy.
Another consideration was that they were trying to pack as many guns into the limited hull length that they had. Not only do you need room for the guns to rotate (as @robby mentioned) but you also need enough room for all of the stuff hidden inside the hull (magazines, etc). Elevating the middle turret allows you to pack the stuff on different decks and squeeze them into a shorter hull space.
The third turret can’t fire forward, but the guns were designed more to maximize broadsides anyway, so no biggie. As @robby said, the drawbacks of raising the third turret even higher (which also would result in the shorter hull length) would give you the advantage of being able to fire all three turrets forward, but at a cost of significant extra weight and top-heaviness. Since the guns were meant for broadsides, the weight savings and making the ship less top-heavy were deemed more important than the ability to fire all three turrets forward.
Yamato did not have a third forward turret, but the older English battleship class Nelson did. Ideally each turret would superfiring over the turret in front; but placed the third so high, along with the needed armor below it, would add a great deal of weight and throw off the metacentric height (top heavy). But also constricting the length of the turrets made sense, to allow greater armor over them, and not to pushing the forward turret in the very limited width far forward - so one superfiring turret did made sense - as it decreased the length required. This odd design was the compromise both the English and Japanese settled on.
The American Brooklyn class also did something similar.
I’ll note that @Johnny_L.A’s picture is of a preliminary design that was not actually used. As built, @Sooner’s explanation is correct as far as it goes, but is missing an IMO relevant point.
As they said, there were two, not three, main battery turrets forward housing 3x 46cm/45 guns. But there was a third turret direct aft of #2 that’s superelevated above the first two. It’s smaller, being one of (originally) four turrets of the secondary battery. It housed 3x 15.5cm/60 guns.
See Japanese battleship Yamato - Wikipedia as well as the related article on the Yamato class for many pix corroborating this.
It’s also obvious that the third foredeck turret is far smaller & lighter then the two main battery turrets. So it was feasible to raise that lesser weight to that height without excessively destabilizing the ship.
In looking at the overall idea of the preliminary design, we see all three main batteries forward and all three secondary batteries aft. From both a weight and a recoil POV that’s not as stable as splitting each battery between fore and aft.
Separate but related to that …
In more typical battleships with two main batteries forward and one aft, the #3 battery can’t fire into roughly the forward quadrant at all; the whole superstructure is in the way, plus whatever midships smaller armaments are sticking out.
Moving the #3 battery forward, but not superelevated over #2, as the preliminary design had it, would have somewhat improved the field of forward fire of the #3 turret, so maybe a 30-40 degree excluded cone dead ahead instead of 90+ degrees. But at the expense of eliminating roughly the entire rearward quadrant.
Being able to fire at least one turret of main guns at any pursuer sounds like a feature it’d be very desirable to have. Any opponent knowing your configuration would know they have a completely safe haven of approach if they can get within your aft quadrant and outside fo secondary gun range.
It’s tradeoffs everywhere you look. Battleships were pretty much limit case designs pushing the state of the art in everything about them at their time of design. And between the e.g. 1900s and the 1940s, one heck of a lot of progress was made in that state of the arts plural, leading to rapid obsolescence of the ships as built. hence the many hurry-up efforts to refit and improve ships not that long after their first mission.
I was looking for a pic that matched my memory of models I’d seen as a kid, but I don’t know enough about IJN ships to know exactly what to search on. So I searched for something like “japanese wwII ships with three forward turrets”, looked at images, and Yamato was all over them.
No criticism meant. It’s an interesting discussion in any case.
It’s certainly plausible that Yamato could have been built that way, and as @Sooner pointed out, other sorta contemporary ships had been built that way.
So did the Texas class, with a fifth turret at deck level amidships slightly aft.
You can see it right above the tug in the photo below:
Right. Dreadnought’s descendants by their very nature involved a whole lot of “hey I have this new idea…” in the design of every new class, and classes coming up fast and furious one after the other.
So happens early dreadnoughts tended to inherit from precursor designs a layout of some primary turrets in “wing” positions or in echelon, which meant a notable share of the battery could not bear on broadside. Or could technically fire on a limited arc across-deck… wrecking all sorts of your own shyte with the muzzle blast.
So pretty soon it was adopted that the primaries would be on centerline, the logic being that if you can have 12 to 16 big guns but only 8 to 10 can broadside, you might as well just have 8 to 10 Really Big ones that can do it.
Someone else already mentioned the Nelsons as the one class built with three triple 16-inch turrets all up front, and that was partly in order to fit that onto a ship that would meet the limits of the interwar naval treaties.
Main gun turrets had 2, 3, and 4 barrels at times. What was this history of how that developed?
As if things were not complicated enough, there were the Tone class cruisers which had all four main turrets forward (#2 superfiring #1, #3 and #4 facing aft). This was done to free the entire area aft of the superstructure for seaplane handling: unlike the USN, the IJN preferred to use seaplanes for scouting, freeing combat planes for the massed attacks their tactics mandated.
The Japanese handicapped themselves with their insistence on using 2 gun not 3 gun turrets for their cruisers, hence all the restricted arc turrets.
For the heavies, 2 guns/turret was the initial norm during the Dreadnought revolution, but the USS Nevada was the first (I believe) with 3, tho she actually had a 32-23 arrangement; subsequent American designs went with 33-33. The 2’s hung in there through the Hood and Nagato’s, but after that the only country which stuck with 2’s was Germany, whose Bismarcks were basically upgraded Bayern’s.
The British and French tried 4 gun turrets; the former couldn’t get a 44-4 arrangement to work on their King George V’s, so they were forced to downgrade the 2nd turret to 2 guns (42-4). The French went with 44, both forward (tho on a latter ship, the Gascogne, the design went with 4 forward 4 aft), despite concerns that one hit could disable an entire turret. They did put a big bulkhead down the middle of the turrets (and a long gap between the turrets), and in fact in one battle one had one side disabled while the other was still able to fire. The unbuilt Alsace class was planned to go with 44-4 (yes 2 forward 1 aft).
The concern with the all-forward arrangement is that she would be unable to fire at a pursuing ship. Just like with modern day passenger jets with 2 big engines, everyone eventually realized that 33-3 was the most optimal, until battleships themselves were understood to be obsolete.
I’m not following any of this numbering nomenclature. Can you clarify?
And the Yamato class as built was in violation of the treaty limits.
But I wonder if that preliminary design was originally meant to adhere to the treaty limits, in which case it’s not unreasonable that the Japanese designers arrived at the same compromise as the British. (Nope - Wikipedia sez that the design studies for the Yamato class started after Japan renounced the naval treaties. (Though it’s still possible that Japan wanted UK and US to think they hadn’t blown completely through the treaty limits, and made some smaller designs to maintain that impression.))
Monitor was the first turreted warship which fired its guns in anger, and it had two guns. Two guns seem to be pretty standard for most predreadnought turrets. Three gun turrets start around the dreadnought age; the advantage was greater firepower, of course, the disadvantage in weight, machinery complexity, and putting more of your guns into a single turret, thus more of your firepower could be knocked out with one hit. I think the US never had a four-gun turret in a battleship; the Royal Navy King George V class was to have three four-gun turrets, but ended up with making the B-turret (superfiring forward) a two-gun turret because of stability issues.
Partially ninja’ed.
Bow to stern, number of guns per turret, hyphen to separate the bow guns from the stern ones.
Thanks!
@bump: Thanks for the pic. That triggered a voyage of discovery for me. Here’s a couple links for anyone interested: USS Texas (BB-35) - Wikipedia & Battleship Texas Foundation.
Color me amazed that thing is still afloat 110+ years after launch. The wiki article’s section on its post-Navy life is quite a harrowing tale of what it takes to keep a steel ship above the water for over a century. Definitely worth a read.
@OttoDaFe: And now almost all navies are doing the same thing on everything but their flattops. The aft end of just about every modern warship is for helos and their hangars. The offensive batteries, be they missiles or guns, are all midships or forward.
I remeber a discussion I had with a history professor. He mentioned an engineering student in his class had done an analysis of why roman ships did not make use of catapults. The analysis was the torsion on the hull if a large load was fired in any direction but along the keel would stress the hull construction and cause the ship to start leaking. (Not to mention weight of ammunition).
I wonder how heavily braced modern warships are to accomodate the torsion of those massive guns. I recall something about ships of the line in the days of sailing would fire broadsides in sequence rather than all at once, allegedly to minimize this problem. And of course, modern battleships have welded hulls, so less likely stress induces leaks.
You’re probably recalling IJN heavy cruisers; this was a very common turret arrangement for them.
Myoko class:
Takao class:
Mogami class:
Mogami’s arrangement allowed the firing of all 6 8" guns directly forward depending upon the range, but it was the last designed of the classes, and had origionally been built with triple 6" turrets instead of twin 8" turrets, as Japan had already used up its 8" cruiser tonnage allowed under the Washington Naval Treaty - though it had been designed from the get go for the turrets to be relaced later with 8" ones, they just couldn’t so blatently violate the treaty when they were commisioned.
