How to improve RN guns and turrets during the interwar period

Exactly what it says on the tin. How can Britain improve the quality of it's naval guns and gun turrets after WW1? Particularly triple turrets?
 
By not being broke so it can afford proper research and by not having so many people being killed WW I so it can have more talented people.

It might also help to have a better understanding the ballistics of the German weapons and to study the successful US triple turrets.

BTW, Landshark, have considered doing your own research instead of starting eight or ten threads asking others to do your research for you?
 
Perhaps there is reduced budget for gunnery design, as funds are instead diverted towards overall ship design and project management. A decision would be made to develop a triple 15" from the existing twin, rather than upscaling and starting fresh with triple 16". A possible side-effect is that the reduced weight of a triple 15", versus the triple 16", may negate the urge to use delicate stuff and light-weight materials in the gun/turret design. This could improve turret reliability.

Politically, this might be a tough sell if the Japanese and Americans are building 16" ships.

Alternately, more work done prior to WNT-equivalent means the turret is (mostly) fully realized with sturdy parts and materials when any WNT provisions do come into effect. Rather than spend the time/money to redesign it to be lighter in weight, with reduced reliability, the powers-that-be deem it easier to achieve any required weight savings on warships through other areas (speed, protection, secondary battery...)
 
BTW, Landshark, have considered doing your own research instead of starting eight or ten threads asking others to do your research for you?

I am doing my own research, however as many people here have a deeper and wider knowledge of the technical aspects of these things and sources on them I thought I'd ask here as well. If however this offends you in some way Phil you can always use your ignore button and thereby cease to worry about me or my threads.
 
I also can feel free to comment on what I see as an annoying trend.

I am just surprised given the number of threads you started to find that you are actually doing your own research. I do not recall seeing so many threads done requesting research on a prior occasion. It is an interesting strategy to attempt to preempt criticism of a timeline.
I am doing my own research, however as many people here have a deeper and wider knowledge of the technical aspects of these things and sources on them I thought I'd ask here as well. If however this offends you in some way Phil you can always use your ignore button and thereby cease to worry about me or my threads.
 
Perhaps there is reduced budget for gunnery design, as funds are instead diverted towards overall ship design and project management. A decision would be made to develop a triple 15" from the existing twin, rather than upscaling and starting fresh with triple 16". A possible side-effect is that the reduced weight of a triple 15", versus the triple 16", may negate the urge to use delicate stuff and light-weight materials in the gun/turret design. This could improve turret reliability.

Politically, this might be a tough sell if the Japanese and Americans are building 16" ships.

Alternately, more work done prior to WNT-equivalent means the turret is (mostly) fully realized with sturdy parts and materials when any WNT provisions do come into effect. Rather than spend the time/money to redesign it to be lighter in weight, with reduced reliability, the powers-that-be deem it easier to achieve any required weight savings on warships through other areas (speed, protection, secondary battery...)

Talwar

The problem is that, with one exception, there was nothing wrong with the basic design and thought behind the initial 16" gun. The exception was that because of mis-reading the results of tests with German guns it was thought, fairly briefly but at a crucial time, that the best approach was a lighter shell with a higher velocity. [Previous British philosophy was for a heavier gun with a lower velocity].

The main problems with the gun on the Nelson's came from efforts to cut its weight to meet the agreed tonnage targets so they would have very likely to recur in any treaty limited situation.

It might have been better going for a 15" triple as the 15" was a reliable and well known gun and the resultant system would have been somewhat lighter. However still likely even with that to see weight saving steps to meet treaty limits.

One thing Phil is right about is that it needed money to resolve those problems but unfortunately the political will [not the money] was lacking.

Steve

Steve
 
The main problems with the gun on the Nelson's came from efforts to cut its weight to meet the agreed tonnage targets so they would have very likely to recur in any treaty limited situation.
Steve, you have been making this claim for some time. I have been posting citations that rebut this claim. Do you any have any support for this claim? I have seen nothing to support it in any published works.
 
I also can feel free to comment on what I see as an annoying trend.

I am just surprised given the number of threads you started to find that you are actually doing your own research. I do not recall seeing so many threads done requesting research on a prior occasion. It is an interesting strategy to attempt to preempt criticism of a timeline.

Considering the amount of criticism the Raid on Scarpa Flow thread has attracted for not making sense I thought I'd make sure the planned thread hangs together as tightly as possible. Addmittedly that thread has grown from a fairly simple on concerning the RN's carrier arm to something involving battlships, battlecruisers and other country's navies. I had hoped that while these threads provided me with research and ideas they would also provide interesting and enjoyable debate and discussion, if however you do see this as an annoying trend feel free to report me to the moderators for spamming the board.
 
I just received my copy of Norman Friedman's new book Naval Weapons of World War One. It is quite a tome of information. It was interesting to read that after the Russian Civil War the British had one of the former-Imperial Russian Black Sea dreadnought Volia in their possession and the thru some missteps never got around to testing out and examining the triple turrets.
 
I just received my copy of Norman Friedman's new book Naval Weapons of World War One. It is quite a tome of information. It was interesting to read that after the Russian Civil War the British had one of the former-Imperial Russian Black Sea dreadnought Volia in their possession and the thru some missteps never got around to testing out and examining the triple turrets.

From the few resources I've got on hand the guns seem to have been respected by the Germans. If I can get the RN to hang onto the ship for a while rather than handing it over to the Whites then they may get some ideas.
 

mowque

Banned
Landshark, you have made 'After 1900' very RN and naval centric. Not saying this is a bad thing...


Is the answer to the OP as simple as "More Funding"or "More Training"? All the issues in the RN, during this period, are systemic ones going much deeper then training. I have to ask, how much better can the gunnery be?
 
Landshark, you have made 'After 1900' very RN and naval centric. Not saying this is a bad thing...

Hopefully I'm not overdoing it.

Is the answer to the OP as simple as "More Funding"or "More Training"? All the issues in the RN, during this period, are systemic ones going much deeper then training. I have to ask, how much better can the gunnery be?

Then it looks like I need to break the system and put it back together more efficiently.
 
Top