Thread: defiant
View Single Post
  #27  
Old 05-29-2008, 04:09 PM
Gunny1's Avatar
Gunny1 Gunny1 is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 831
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akula2ssn View Post
Well Off-axis battleships like the Texas and Maine, had a turret on each side (port and starboard). So balancing the mass of the guns in relation to the centerline isn't a problem.

AHA! - I see where we had the 'dislocation' here; I was referring to the discrepency in off-axial pre-dreadnought (PD) design: all guns, engaged or not, have to swing out, in order to maintain axial balance. (Prevent listing.) I mistook your own comments in this matter...

(I.e.; PD ships could NOT engage one enemy directly abeam, port, and another well aft, starboard - the starboard guns, in the original designs, HAD to be trained out to close to the same degree as the port ones, or the leverage effect would kick in.)

Now that we are 'on the same page', so to speak; you are referring to turret offset itself - in that, in the case of each individual turret, the guns project a certain distance 'forward', (if the turret is trained forward/aft.) There then, of course, must be a matching counterweight IN THAT TURRET at the rear; something the original barbette turrets did not have..

As example the turret-mount, itself, is still circular; but as a shot of a model shows, there is a large rear 'overhang' to match the weight of the gun-barrels themselves.



Again, Akula, I apologize for misunderstanding what you were (quite very correctly!) trying to point out. I thought you were referring to position-of-turret in overall ship design when, in fact, you were correctly describing problems in the actual 'pillbox' turret design, itself.
__________________
XI COUNTDOWN CLOCK:


Last edited by Gunny1 : 05-29-2008 at 04:12 PM.
Reply With Quote