Opinion on quadruple gun turrets?

>>63946764 (OP)
>Asks about quadruple gun turrets
>Posts a sex-tuple gun turret
Dumb frog poster

yes

>>63946826
Pre-dreadnoughts are wild.

>>63946764 (OP)
The French quad turret was essentially two twins stuck together
The British quad turret was heavier than expected

I think the concept is alright but it only came round by the end of the battleship era

>>63946847
>So the British quad turret was the true quad turret?

>>63946847
So the British quad turret was the true quad turret?

>>63946764 (OP)
As effective as missile destroyers have shown themselves to be cannons are just sexo

>>63946764 (OP)
How can I into warships more, the most I know of currently is 18th century warships as well as the fact that battleships stopped being made after WW2.. There's so much more I want to discover about them but understanding different vessels and their roles in modern navies and how it contrasts to various points in history gets a bit overwhelming

>>63946764 (OP)

>>63946953
???

>>63946953
Step 1: Make a collection (needs to be high quality images or we'll berate you for posting shitty 300x200 images).

>>63946764 (OP)
Needs more barrels

>>63946764 (OP)
Manifest SEXO

>>63946953
Drachinifel on YT

Imagine how massive German quad turret would be.

Imagine how massive a German quad turret would be.

>>63947604
I feel that I can't stand when people get lazy with imagedumps, quality over quantity but for some retarded reason this site still has a cap on resolution size

>>63946764 (OP)
Four is an auspicious number in nearly every culture going back to the dawn of humanity. Consider the "four winds". The expression "the four corners of the earth". The square and the cross are universal symbols. A 4-way intersection, aka "crossroads" was said to be able to lead to the underworld in cultures as varied as Asian and African. So, a 4-gun turret has a strong association with power and death. The question is: does that bode death for the enemy? Or one's own ship?

>>63947967
Deuteronomy 18:10
don't look for omens

>>63946764 (OP)
>Four

>>63946847
>I've read 2 twinks stuck together at first
>it actually made sense to me, so I didn't question it at first
Just

If you want to invoke the Bible there's plenty of references to four as well. The 4 beasts at God's throne (Ezekiel and Revelation), The 4 horsemen of Revelation 6, the 4 witnesses of God on earth (Hebrews 2), the Cross...

>>63946764 (OP)
Feels like they wanted bigger guns but had to cope with treaty or engineering limitations.

>>63948160
it's good to look for divine meaning in the Bible obviously, but assigning divine meaning to manmade objects borders on sin

Isaiah 44:9-20

I wish the North Carolinas had been built with quad 14’s, even if the triple 16’s are objectively the better choice.

>>63948784
>I wish the North Carolinas had been built with quad 14’
Like this?

>>63948784
>>63948851

The US style downward opening breech block would have been advantageous for triple or quadruple guns.
On the other hand, the British style side opening breech block seems to be at a disadvantage.

>>63947795
Seconded. Dude is a machine.

I think it provides for better amour protection around the turret basket and magazine.
probably the total system weight is reduced as there is less duplication of equipment for traverse and loading.

>>63946847
> I think the concept is alright but it only came round by the end of the battleship era
The French had quadruple turret at the end of WW1 already tho iirc

>>63946847
Having an internal division is good in case of a shell penetration, only 2 guns of the 4 would be disabled.
>>63950239
The Dunkerques were built well after WWI but right before WWII.

>>63950098
Did they manage to lose a barrel somehow?

>>63950250
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandie-class_battleship
The Germans even examined the quadruple turrets for study and evaluation

>>63950448
Oh I wasn't aware of that, looks neat, still iffy about that gun size, must be the result of metrication.

>>63950407
Yes. During the battle of Dakar they had a shell detonate in the breach.
That picture was taken a couple years later when she was taken to New York for repairs and refit.

The caption is wrong BTW, that’s not Jean Bart, it’s Richelieu.

>>63950488
Sorry, I meant file name not caption. I just had a retard moment and couldn’t think of the term.

There are some photos that are confusing to distinguish.

>>63946764 (OP)
Quadruple gun turrets, like those on the French Richelieu-class or Dunkerque-class battleships, are a mixed bag. They pack a punch, cramming four guns into one turret, which maximizes firepower for a given displacement and keeps the ship’s length down—key for fitting into docks or navigating tight waters like the Panama Canal. The French used them to concentrate eight 15-inch or 13-inch guns in just two forward turrets, leaving room for heavy armor and decent speed. Sounds great, right?But there’s a catch. Packing four guns into one turret is asking for trouble. Mechanically, they’re complex—more moving parts, more chances for jams or breakdowns. If a single turret gets knocked out (say, by a lucky hit), you lose half your main battery, unlike twin or triple turrets where the loss is less catastrophic. Dispersion can also be an issue; the guns are so close that their blasts interfere, making accuracy trickier than with twins or triples. The French mitigated this with delay coils, but it wasn’t perfect. Plus, the weight of a quad turret puts serious strain on the ship’s structure and machinery.Compare that to the US Navy’s Iowa-class with three triple 16-inch turrets: spread the risk, simpler mechanics, and better firing arcs. Quads look cool and save space, but they’re a gamble—high reward, high risk. If you’re fighting a duel where one hit can decide it, quads might bite you in the ass.What’s the thread’s take? Anyone got data on quad turret reliability from WWII? Or is this just a “rule of cool” debate?

houthis apparently used 4 [unmanned] explosive boats on a large bulk carrier. the crew had to abandon ship because of flooding.

the explosive boats are probably the most effective weapon against surface vessels behind torpedoes in regards to effect on target since they hit at the waterline, along with being cheap in comparison to complex missiles.

>>63946764 (OP)
share your opinion first you fucking lazy faggot
stop shitting up the board

>>63951124
Get a life

>>63950676
Somehow Torpedo Boats have returned. The Dakka-Class gunboat will see to their defeat

>>63950676
> the explosive boats are probably the most effective weapon as long as the target is unarmed and/or Russian (read as: mentally unarmed)
FTFY

>>63951704
dorbedo boad :DDDD

Those annoying lil sandnigs could be pwned easily (note, I didn't say 'simply', or 'quickly'), without even having to exterminate their lolranian backers (so sit your ass back down mr Satanyahu), with the proper force composition.
Unfortunately, the specific force composition required to keep the Bab-el-Mandeb free from sandnog explody toys does not exist right now.

>>63946764 (OP)
I like them

>>63946764 (OP)
more dakka
good

they look cool
i can offer no other input other than that