question on Turret: X vs V

[Deleted]

X: Aft superimposed
V: Midships Aft superimposed

I noticed V turret is lighter than X, but they seem to have the same firing arc. Is there any adverse effect on using V turret?
Or is V turret the generally preferred one, being lighter?

(Sorry if it's already asked!)

[tbr]

V turret blocks cross-deck firing so in the time where you have the 3 central turret, superfiring aft and CDF technologies using X turret allows for a five turret broadside (the Moltke/Neptune layout). We actually need superfiring aft divided into three technologies, with the first one allowing X with about 2x120° port/starboard field of fire due to the vulnerable hoods in the lower turret (if superfiring B is developed early it should have the same restriction, but in the normal course it will be last anyways). Then comes in the V turret technology alllowing for 270° of fire aft due to the greater distance between turrets, the last tech would be redesigned sighting hoods allowing 270° fire for superfiring B and X turrets.

As for weight,IMO V turret should actually be heavier than X or at least the same weight. It has the same height above waterline as X and B turret, or higher, but these can share some infrastructure with the adjacent turrets, which V cannot unless in a Wyoming class arrangement which cannot be fully replicated ingame. The retaining of 270° FOF for V even if X is mounted as well implies it is mounted higher than X and able to fire aft above it, meaning more weight in armor and more weight due to the metacentric effect of the higher turret. You can generate ship side views of your BB and BC designs with such a 5 turret arrangement.

[tbr]

The "Tiger" arrangement with (in game terms) A-B-V-Y was at least in part because it fully enabled 270° firing for both aft turrets after negative experience wth A-B superfiring trials.

[chz]

I thought the Kongo/Tiger layout was purely to do with machinery space?

[tbr]

No, there was an issue discovered with the sighting hoods of the lower turrets when superfiring which for a time lead the RN to not use superfiring turrets in the bearings where their blast could affect the lower turrets. The large distance between the two aft turrets on Tiger/Kongo meant that was not an issue and allowed these BC's to fire directly aft with four guns, which was considered important in their envisioned tactical role. While this was probably not the main reason for the arrangement it was however recognized as a distinct advantage.

Later the RN re-designed the sighting hoods on the lower turrets for "full" superfiring even with close turrets. Germany curiously never seemed to have had such problems. This might have been more sagacious design of the turrets to begin with or for another reason, in any case this would be covered with the existing tech system where "jumps" happen.

[director]

Also true that Britain depended on the rangefinders in the turrets as much or more than those on the superstructure - was also true in WW2 - where Germany and the US used the turret rangefinders only for backups. So it was more important to Britain not to jar the turret rangefinders.