WesWorld

So as not to clutter Hrolf's thread here is a quick mess-around with SS and qaud turrets. Hull length might be a tad short but I'm constrained to dry dock lengths abroad.
Feel free to comment etc.

HMS Triumphant, Great Britain Light Cruiser laid down 1938

Displacement:
9,179 t light; 9,728 t standard; 11,399 t normal; 12,736 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
568.65 ft / 557.00 ft x 65.00 ft x 20.00 ft (normal load)
173.32 m / 169.77 m x 19.81 m x 6.10 m

Armament:
16 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (4x4 guns), 112.00lbs / 50.80kg shells, 1936 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (4x2 guns), 45.00lbs / 20.41kg shells, 1936 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all aft, all raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 6.00lbs / 2.72kg shells, 1936 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all aft, all raised mounts - superfiring
36 - 0.66" / 16.8 mm guns (6x6 guns), 0.14lbs / 0.06kg shells, 1936 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 2,205 lbs / 1,000 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250
8 - 24.5" / 622.3 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4.50" / 114 mm 355.00 ft / 108.20 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 98 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 3.00" / 76 mm 2.00" / 51 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
2nd: 1.50" / 38 mm 0.50" / 13 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
4th: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 85,000 shp / 63,410 Kw = 32.07 kts
Range 12,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,008 tons

Complement:
551 - 717

Cost:
£4.916 million / $19.662 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 268 tons, 2.3 %
Armour: 1,947 tons, 17.1 %
- Belts: 678 tons, 6.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 273 tons, 2.4 %
- Armour Deck: 974 tons, 8.5 %
- Conning Tower: 22 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 2,327 tons, 20.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,437 tons, 38.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,220 tons, 19.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 1.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
17,107 lbs / 7,759 Kg = 158.4 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 2.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.22
Metacentric height 3.8 ft / 1.2 m
Roll period: 14.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.45
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.02

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.551
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.57 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27.11 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 61 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Mid (47 %): 25.00 ft / 7.62 m (18.00 ft / 5.49 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Stern: 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Average freeboard: 22.11 ft / 6.74 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 88.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 152.4 %
Waterplane Area: 26,331 Square feet or 2,446 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 127 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 110 lbs/sq ft or 537 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.94
- Longitudinal: 1.74
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Really I think you need the extra length. Fiji is already pretty cramped and you're trying to put quite a bit more on the same hull.


One I did earlier; Comes out a bit slow in SS (which seems to consistently underestimate RN speeds by 1.5-2knts) but otherwise pretty good.


HMS Beflast, laid down 1936

Displacement:
9,996 t light; 10,518 t standard; 11,981 t normal; 13,152 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(613.03 ft / 606.00 ft) x 63.30 ft x (18.25 / 19.71 ft)
(186.85 m / 184.71 m) x 19.29 m x (5.56 / 6.01 m)

Armament:
16 - 6.00" / 152 mm 50.0 cal guns - 112.00lbs / 50.80kg shells, 200 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1936 Model
3 x Quad mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring
1 x Quad mount on centreline, aft deck aft
12 - 4.00" / 102 mm 45.0 cal guns - 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 200 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1936 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, aft evenly spread
6 raised mounts
16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 39.0 cal guns - 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1,800 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1936 Model
2 x Single mounts on sides amidships
2 double raised mounts
Weight of broadside 2,208 lbs / 1,002 kg
6 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m torpedoes - 1.544 t each, 9.266 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted side rotating tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4.50" / 114 mm 414.00 ft / 126.19 m 14.70 ft / 4.48 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 4.50" / 114 mm 152.00 ft / 46.33 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 105 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 4.00" / 102 mm 2.00" / 51 mm 2.00" / 51 mm

- Armoured deck - multiple decks: 2.75" / 70 mm For and Aft decks

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 80,000 shp / 59,680 Kw = 30.36 kts
Range 17,500nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,633 tons

Complement:
572 - 744

Cost:
£4.622 million / $18.486 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 538 tons, 4.5 %
- Guns: 529 tons, 4.4 %
- Torpedoes: 9 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 2,859 tons, 23.9 %
- Belts: 1,405 tons, 11.7 %
- Armament: 248 tons, 2.1 %
- Armour Deck: 1,205 tons, 10.1 %
Machinery: 2,245 tons, 18.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,354 tons, 36.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,986 tons, 16.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
18,867 lbs / 8,558 Kg = 174.7 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 2.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.21
Metacentric height 3.6 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 14.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 53 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.47
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.07

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.599 / 0.609
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.57 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.62 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: -3.00 ft / -0.91 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 16.00 %, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m, 24.25 ft / 7.39 m
- Forward deck: 22.00 %, 24.25 ft / 7.39 m, 24.25 ft / 7.39 m
- Aft deck: 47.00 %, 16.25 ft / 4.95 m, 16.25 ft / 4.95 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 16.25 ft / 4.95 m, 16.25 ft / 4.95 m
- Average freeboard: 19.42 ft / 5.92 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 78.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 172.2 %
Waterplane Area: 28,030 Square feet or 2,604 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 128 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 111 lbs/sq ft or 542 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.03
- Longitudinal: 1.16
- Overall: 1.04
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
16 - 6.00" / 152 mm 50.0 cal guns - 112.00lbs / 50.80kg shells, 200 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1936 Model
3 x Quad mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring
1 x Quad mount on centreline, aft evenly spread
1 raised mount

Something rather odd here, what are you attempting to do?

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Something rather odd here, what are you attempting to do?

Belfast and Edinburgh had extended trunks for better ammunition handling.

A turret is on the weather deck
B turret superfires over A

X turret is on the same level as B
Y turret is on the same level as A
but because of the hull break, both are above deck.


http://www.warshipsww2.eu/lode.php?langu…iod=&idtrida=46

In that case, you'd probably want to code 1 turret as being double high aft, right now it's coded where the two aft turrets are both at the same level, as in HMS Dreadnought.

Been fiddling further with this idea and gone further down the Belfast route. Nearly thought about a 20 gunned ship but that was too crazy to seriously think about.
This isn't about Germany's new cruisers but more a case of, "Germany has gone for 15 and other nations now have, should we look at 15 too? Is this the new standard? Is this a good idea?"


HMS Trafalgar, Great Britain Light Cruiser laid down 1940

Displacement:
9,799 t light; 10,358 t standard; 12,075 t normal; 13,448 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
634.65 ft / 623.00 ft x 64.50 ft x 20.00 ft (normal load)
193.44 m / 189.89 m x 19.66 m x 6.10 m

Armament:
16 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (4x4 guns), 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1940 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (4x2 guns), 45.00lbs / 20.41kg shells, 1940 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all aft, all raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 6.00lbs / 2.72kg shells, 1940 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
36 - 0.66" / 16.8 mm guns (6x6 guns), 0.14lbs / 0.07kg shells, 1940 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 2,165 lbs / 982 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250
8 - 24.5" / 622.3 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4.50" / 114 mm 370.00 ft / 112.78 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 91 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 3.00" / 76 mm 2.00" / 51 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
2nd: 1.50" / 38 mm 0.50" / 13 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
4th: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 85,000 shp / 63,410 Kw = 32.26 kts
Range 12,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,090 tons

Complement:
575 - 748

Cost:
£5.331 million / $21.325 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 271 tons, 2.2 %
Armour: 2,200 tons, 18.2 %
- Belts: 847 tons, 7.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 274 tons, 2.3 %
- Armour Deck: 1,056 tons, 8.7 %
- Conning Tower: 23 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 2,273 tons, 18.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,856 tons, 40.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,276 tons, 18.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 1.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
19,137 lbs / 8,680 Kg = 177.2 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 2.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.14
Metacentric height 3.3 ft / 1.0 m
Roll period: 14.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.55
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.22

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.526
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.66 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.48 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 57
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Mid (47 %): 26.00 ft / 7.92 m (18.00 ft / 5.49 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Stern: 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Average freeboard: 22.24 ft / 6.78 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 82.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 163.9 %
Waterplane Area: 28,530 Square feet or 2,651 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 133 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 109 lbs/sq ft or 534 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.48
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Class Names:

Radar Equipment: Classified

Misc weight includes:
Provision for 3 aircraft (two normally carried)
8 reload torpedoes and handing gear

The RN has quite a few cruisers already, and big ones, so I'm not sure this is the way to go.

Historically there were the "heavy deck Fiji" designs, which would probably fit in quite nicely here. An enlarged hull up to around 610x72.5 and same 4x3x6" armament but increased AA armament and horizontal protection quite a bit heavier. Lots more space and beam for adding in extra systems (radar, fighter direction, HACS directors). Around 12800tons standard.

Can the RN accept reduced fighting power in exchange for greater utility?

Italy still hasn't really decided on whether to keep on building the 16x152mm type or simply to churn out a whole load of the smaller 4500ton cruiser/destroyer type.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Been fiddling further with this idea and gone further down the Belfast route. Nearly thought about a 20 gunned ship but that was too crazy to seriously think about.
This isn't about Germany's new cruisers but more a case of, "Germany has gone for 15 and other nations now have, should we look at 15 too? Is this the new standard? Is this a good idea?"

In my opinion, using more than 12x6" is pretty much pointless and wasteful. If I want a ship with more firepower than 12x6", I'll up to 8" guns (either 9x8" or 12x8"). Historically, the USN found this is true, going from the 15x6" Brooklyns to the 12x6" Clevelands because they were unhappy with the fifteen-gun design. I'm glad to see that the Wesworld Brooklyns used 12x6".

So no, I don't think it's a good idea to go to 15x6" or 16x6". I think people equate "More guns = Better Fighting Power" when sometimes adding more guns makes the design worse. I don't really think highly of the Italian 16x6" cruisers (sorry RA) and the German/Argentine/Peruvian CLs are just at the tipping point - they're solid enough that I don't really see problems with them, but would never build one myself.

The Clevelands went to 12x6" because of the increased AA armament and systems that needed to be put onto the hull. Putting an extra turret on would push up the displacement and cost. It was slightly more complicated than that actually with reduction in size, 8" guns, twin 6" DP and a few other things in between. Really the USN was unhappy with 6" guns, wanted 8". Realised it couldn't fit any armour if 8" guns were used so changed to 10x6", then treaty ended so displacement jumped and armament increased to 12x6".

Quoted

I don't really think highly of the Italian 16x6" cruisers

Naturally I like them myself. Why, because below 15000yds you've got so many shells in the air to cause problems to any target, even a capital ship. Doesn't make any particular trade offs in the design either. Now five turrets can make the design worse, given space constraints, increased weight and reduced firing arcs. Four turrets should be fine and Italy has plenty of experience with quadruple 152mm turrets so shouldn't be problems there either. I did fancy 8x203mm but it just pushed up the displacement too much, and then might as well have gone for 12x203. As it is, the light cruiser ballooned from 7000-10,000tons in only a decade.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

I don't really think highly of the Italian 16x6" cruisers

Naturally I like them myself. Why, because below 15000yds you've got so many shells in the air to cause problems to any target, even a capital ship. Doesn't make any particular trade offs in the design either. Now five turrets can make the design worse, given space constraints, increased weight and reduced firing arcs. Four turrets should be fine and Italy has plenty of experience with quadruple 152mm turrets so shouldn't be problems there either. I did fancy 8x203mm but it just pushed up the displacement too much, and then might as well have gone for 12x203. As it is, the light cruiser ballooned from 7000-10,000tons in only a decade.

*Shrugs* Well, it's just my opinion, of course. After getting such negative comments on my Magellanes-class, I'm considering just building Battle-class cruisers (at 4,500 tons a pop) and building sixteen of them instead of four like originally planned.

To the defense of the 16 gunners, specifically those in the quads, they at least can bring a standard ammount to bear over the fifteen gunners - typically, one of those turrets somewhere along the way is a broadside turret. Comparatively, the four-quad layout keeps a traditional two over two layout, and gets all the arcs of fire of a standard layout cruiser, which with guns capable of higher angles of fire, like, say, Japanese 155mm layout, you're looking at being able to put all the shells in the air without being on the broadside per se. Every turret, with proper layout, has the full 270 degree arc of fire, which generates a lot more coverage of fire, bringing that hailstorm to bear in a real nice range of fire.

While yes, you could get a nice dozen 8" rounds in flight with a similar layout of triple mounts, let's consider - Generally, 8" guns weren't very good performers for DP fire - It's all in the layout really. If you set it up aft-balanced like a Konigsberg, you could get a similar effect with a fifteen gun cruiser - lower stern, weather deck, and structure mounts. Additionally, you get the aft balance benefits that can be handy for helping in other ways.


But that's just one fellow's opinion.

Well even if 8" guns don't make good DP weapons the U.S. cruisers had their 5" guns for that. Those were fairly potent guns in their own right and they essentially made the 6" gunned cruisers quite potent.

I wouldn't mind seeing how a Cleavland class would have done in the place of Atlanta at Santa Cruz. IMO a 12x6" layout is still quite respectable.

I do recall something about the American cruisers effectivily using their 8'' guns against torpedo bombers.

Maybe with shell splashes; AFAIR, no AA ammunition was ever developed for the USN 8" guns.

The 8" guns on the RN Counties were given high elevation with the view of possible AA fire, but I'm not sure an AA shell was ever developed.

The largest AA shells actually used that I can recall offhand are the 6" guns on the Mogami being given AA shells for long-range AA fire, and the later Sanshiki type ammo developed for larger guns in the IJN...which had more of a chance of disabling the guns in question than firing properly.

Yes, the Heavy Cruisers with the 8" guns had their 5" secondary batteries. This is well and fine, but it means the main weapons still aren't DP - this is the debate of CL vs CA - the general requirement being even mildly DP armaments all around, to project the maximum defense.

I'm with ShinRa - I find the comment of 8" gun rounds being used against aircraft dubious. Timed or Variable Timed fuses I don't recall being used on 8" rounds, which would be requisite for general AA fire. Against Torpedo bombers, they might have been potentially effective in the effect of just firing a round directly at the plane - they did operate in lower altitudes to drop the torpedo at a low height in the first place, so yes, bigger guns could in theory been shot at them.

Though, it might have been interesting if Sanshiki had been developed further - smash some of the kinks out. Then again, I would love to see a fully modern ground up Real battleship, but these are the ramblings of a madman.

Gentlemen,

have you considered rate of firing for a quad versus other turrets?

To have a similar high ROF as with a twin or triple you need a lift and supporting equipment for every gun. As a result you also need a barbet with a larger diameter which has quite a negative impact on hull strength. Counter measures are necessary. Even more so, as the forces to take on are higher in case of a full gun salve.

Finally there is this "too many eggs in a basket" argument. Historically it was compensated by the French by spacing out there turrets. You can´t do that on a 16x6" CL, I guss, or you end up with a MUCH longer hull.

To me this results is a much larger ship in case of 6" quads even though springsharp may not rate it like that.

I question the argument of the wider barbettes weakening the hull - that's really more a case of poor design on the behalf of the people building the ship. The barbette is a large, Armored tower in the center of the hull. It's a great big column of strength, the real problem being that the designers in this case aren't tapping into the strength benefit that the strengthened steel could do - integrate a few bulkheads into the construction of the barbette, and then you're tying the shortened bulkheads to the size of the barbette, harnessing that strong, thick armored bulkhead to retain hull strength.

It's all in harnessing the construction of the barbette instead of just making it a hole in the hull. Of course, that requires thinking a little outside the box.

Similarly the eggs in one basket argument wasn't a deterrent to the King Georges, IIRC, and their quad and twin were rather close together. Of course, there's the point of requiring a little more space between them to get full 270 degree swing for the outer guns anyways, but in the long stretch, you're cutting down on weight in places compared to the 15 gun ship, and getting more fire efficiency out of it.

Quoted

Originally posted by Sauragnmon
I question the argument of the wider barbettes weakening the hull - that's really more a case of poor design on the behalf of the people building the ship. The barbette is a large, Armored tower in the center of the hull. It's a great big column of strength, the real problem being that the designers in this case aren't tapping into the strength benefit that the strengthened steel could do - integrate a few bulkheads into the construction of the barbette, and then you're tying the shortened bulkheads to the size of the barbette, harnessing that strong, thick armored bulkhead to retain hull strength.

Wrong type of hull strength, sorry. Transverse strength isn't a big problem usually, although it can be with concentrated loads - more on this shortly.

The real problem is that you're making a big hole in the hull girder at the upper deck; because the barbette is short compared to the ship and the ship, if competently designed, won't have longitudinal bulkheads. Unfortunately, the upper deck is exactly where the structure is most highly loaded, and hence where you can least afford a big hole. The load also has to flow around said big hole, which causes local stress concentrations, which are bad news both for ultimate strength and for fatigue life. You can work around these problems with heavier scantlings, but that adds weight to the structure which you can't use for useful stuff.

Also, barbettes are heavy, concentrated loads, and this only gets worse with size: big barbettes are heavier, and presumably you want to put even more heavy stuff on top, else there's no point. This gives rise to problems with shear stress; you can actually cause a major hull girder failure in a flat calm if the loading is too concentrated. Think here of piling weights on a plank: you can break it far more easily if all the weight is in one place.

Unfortunately, the shear load is mostly absorbed by the side plating, which is minimally loaded by bending. So to counteract this increased loading, there's yet more plating to reinforce, causing still more loss of useful load.

Of course, if you're operating in restricted waters you might be willing to accept the reduced strength. Otherwise, you have to consider whether reducing the weight for armament, armour and support structure gives you more back than you lose in increased hull weight. Engineering's all about tradeoffs.

I expect this very issue is at least part of the reason why the King George V class had the armament grouped as they did. This allows more protection for the same weight of armour, partly alleviating some of the structural issues.

You're also forgetting - most ship designs, the main battery is, IIRC, included in the Citadel scheme. If the citadel is included and integrated with the barbettes, then you have a constant strength of metal across the area to help increase strength in places. You can also increase strength in the area with the girders between barbettes being integrated similarly to the barbette, similar to arches off the columns.

Similarly, with all the stress on the top, you've got to look at the hull's desire to bow against the water's pressure under the hull, so another step in the direction is to reinforce the keel's strength to counterbalance all the top weight.

The big key is to focus on combining the use of components, instead of thinking of everything as seperate parts - armor is high strength steel by necessity, it also makes for strong points in the hull if properly integrated into the design from the start.

Hi Stephan

A quadruple turret does suffer compared to a triple but still gives greater firepower.

I'm not sure on the stresses compared to five triples but I'd suspect the triple arrangement to be worse. It also gives poorer firing arcs.

I'm not sure on whether having all your eggs in one basket really applies when you've got that many guns. Magazine explosions seem to be reasonably common after turret penetration and there's a lot of turret to hit with five triples.

It does add up to a fairly large ship though.

I'm not sure what is best for a light cruiser. Belfast with RP 4" mountings and magazines aft probably isn't far off the best achievable.