Originally Posted by Akula2ssn
...That would make describing things easier than just text.
Well, here it is in text:
Imagine you are sitting in a canoe. Hold an oar 'tucked under' one arm-pit at about the halfway point. Turn left and right. This is a simulation of a modern, counterbalanced-turret design.
Next, take the same oar and hold it so that the... haft
(can't use the right word, it gets asterisked out...) is against your chest. Turn right and left. This is an 'unbalanced' centerline design.
Next, hold an oar in each hand, right at the haft, oars aligned facing fore-and-aft; this is a simulation for an off-axial battleship; of course, they, being older, ALSO used 'unbalanced' guns. Now, with you holding them fore-and-aft, there's no problem.
Next, twist your wrists so that BOTH 'guns'(oars) train out at roughly the same time. Still, no real problem - the left 'gun' acts as a counter to the right 'gun'.
(BTW - this little example shows WHY, when they first went to axial turrets, it didn't occur to them to counter-balance the guns...)
Now, here's the kicker, that shows WHY axial design superseded off-axial.
Do the same thing, one oar held by the haft in each hand, facing fore and aft... now train out just ONE 'gun'...
The 'pillbox' design had an inherent flaw - but the same flaw was in both equidistant guns, and so could cancel each other out. The 'problem' with the first axial battleships was, ironically enough, the LACK of the countering flaw... (*Grin*)
With counter-balanced axial turrets, you could have Turret 1 firing fore, Turret 2 firing to port, and Turret 3 firing port-to-starboard to track a ship crossing your wake... yet, aside from the not-insignificant recoil, still maintain relative 'balance'.
So - as I missed the first time around - the 'argument' wasn't about POSITION of turret, but STYLE (balance) of the individual turrets.