This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 4 February 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Weapon turret. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Current page says: Gun mounts not on the centerline would be assigned odd numbers on the port side and even numbers on the starboard side. For example, Mount 52 would be the forwardmost 5" gun mount on the port side of the ship.
These two sentences seem contradictory - either even must be port side or the mount 52 should be starboard? Mobeer ( talk) 10:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Replaced ye olde square o'doom ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Battleship_turret_layout.PNG) with something that actually looks like a turret ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Battleship_Turret.PNG) If it's too small, I can resize it, I just felt a need to replace the box. Anomaly 00:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I see no merit in having a separate article for a wing turret, which is really just one particular arrangement of a gun turret. It can be better covered by putting it in the main article. Emoscopes Talk 18:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The Martin B-10 introduced turret-mounted defensive armament within the United States Army Air Corps, nearly a year ahead of the Overstrand, with a power-operated nose turret.
Is this statement credible, given that the articles on these aircraft indicate they entered service in the same year (1934) ? Catsmeat ( talk) 09:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
. . . are not the same thing as tanks. Whilst it is true that the Renault FT was the first operational tank with a turret (and tanks with turrets had been designed previously but not manufactured), turrets were quite common on armoured cars before World War One, and they were combat vehicles.
79.70.82.28 ( talk) 22:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I just created today " Aircraft gun turret" as a redirect to the corresponding section on this article... " Waiting for the appropriate article". Indeed, in my opinion, " Aircraft gun turret" should be an article of its own... and the section, here on this article, should be shorter and headed by a "main article" template. Too many aviation articles link to " turret" in a so inappropriate manner... and we can stop that. On the other hand, instead of creating " Aircraft gun turret" as an independent article, we could create " Aircraft gun mount" as a more inclusive title. Such title includes fixed mounts like directly operated guns on pintles or indirectly operated by other mechanisms... and also aircraft gun turrets, of course. In that latter case, the case of the creation of " Aircraft gun mount" instead of creating " Aircraft gun turret", the section here would be shortened anyway, but becoming as a whole a section on " Aircraft gun mount" instead of an independent article. Just tell me what you think. Kintaro ( talk) 11:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Andy Dingley: About my edit unlinking Samokhodnaya ustanovka, please read what I wrote on the Casemate talk page. Thanks. — Gorthian ( talk) 06:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Section 2.2 makes reference to a "rotating drum," indicating that it was discussed previously. As I was am unfamiliar with the expression, I looked back but couldn't find any other reference to "rotating drum." If this is a reference to a older version and that material has been removed, maybe the language in 2.2 should be tweaked. -- Nkuzmik ( talk) 15:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I have marked two paragraphs in the section Gun turret#Warships as dubious. They contain quite a bit of nonsense.
Before the development of large-calibre, long-range guns in the mid-19th century, the classic battleship design looked like HMS Conqueror (1855). This contained used rows of gunport-mounted guns on each side of the ship. It did not have any casemates.
When Cole invented the turret, casemates for warships had not been invented. The only ironclads were things like the Aetna-class ironclad floating battery. They had a single row of gunport-mounted guns on each side of the ship.
The first sea-going ironclads also had a single row of gunport-mounted guns on each side of the ship, like the French ironclad Gloire.
As guns got larger, ships carried less of them. One solution was to build sea-going turret ships like HMS Monarch (1868) another was to central battery ships like HMS Audacious (1869); American sometimes call the central battery as "casemate" - this is a different meaning of the word "casemate" than the meaning used from about 1889 onwards. Central battery ships had small numbers of guns. You will notice that the Audacious's upper battery juts out from the side of the ship (i.e. the opposite of recessed). There is no shot-trap.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Another objectionable statement is that having the main armament in turrets gave the ship a ".... more versatile unified battery". Surely that should say a less versatile and disunified? Look at the Trafalgar class battleships. They carried their 13.5" guns in turrets. But for lots of targets a 13.5" gun is a bit big, so they had to carry 23 other guns outside the turrets: a mix of 4.7", 6pr, and 3prs.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus against the proposed move. A merge of missile turret can be discussed separately. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 ( talk) 10:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Gun turret → Weapon turret – Missile turret, is very short and should be merged here. It is not a useful distinction. Schierbecker ( talk) 07:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
This article, like the Monitor article, does seem to perpetuate the idea, possibly just through poor communication, that the 160-ton Timble/Ericsson turret was actually jacked up so that the base of the turret left the main deck and rose above it prior to being able to rotate. That's certainly how it reads.
A reasonable understanding of the structure of the turret will indicate to any informed person that this is a nonsensical idea - unfortunately, we have to assume that most readers coming here to learn will not be familiar at a detailed level, if at all, with the structure of the turret. In this case, the following must be considered misleading:
"Including the guns, the turret weighed approximately 160 long tons (163 t); the entire weight rested on an iron spindle that had to be jacked up using a wedge before the turret was free to rotate."
(The Mariner's Museum which holds the actual Monitor turret along with reconstructions and replicas - full-scale ones - seems to agree by virtue of their displays that the iron spindle only ever extended to the main beam at the base of the Monitor's turret, by the way. Photographs of the Museum's turret reconstruction show this extraordinarliy clearly.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.26.58 ( talk) 00:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
It is well-recorded that there was a 'jacking up' or 'keying up' process involving Monitor's central spindle prior to turret operation. It is far better to say that the turret's entire weight was *rotated* by the spindle, but mention should be made of the *turret support truss*.
This was the Y-shaped structure visible in the ahead cross-sectional diagram attached to this very article - it's right there! The turret support truss imparted strength to the same bulkhead which the main spindle was mounted adjacent to; the same bulkhead which bore the weight of the armoured deck, turret bearing ring and turret; and the same bulkhead which separated the galley from accommodation (the donkey engines and primary gearing was located in the galley space, as is extremely well known by those familiar with the ship). It was this truss which also bore the weight of the spindle, with the sliding wedge passing between the truss' central vertical member and the spindle's bearing, when keying up to engage with the yoke in the turret floor.
Two things about the turret ring: Brass, according to Wikipedia, "is still commonly used in applications where corrosion resistance or low friction is required, such as...bearings".
The loading on the brass bearing ring, supporting the entire turret with armour and guns, was about 12.32 pounds per square inch; the same turret borne by the nine-inch diameter spindle would have been over 5,000 psi. That's broadly equivalent to an adult African elephant in stiletto heels, to give an idea. The crush pressure for a brick is 3,000 psi, for additional context.
Naval architects abroad considered that the bearing ring was a less good idea than a roller race, as any deformation of the ship's deck would cause unequal loading on the turret ring and would thus prevent operation of the turret.
So, I recommend changing the phrasing to the following: "Including the guns, the turret weighed approximately 160 long tons (163 t); the entire weight rested on a brass ring set into the armoured upper deck of the raft. An upright iron spindle located under the centre of the turret, nine inches thick and driven via gears from the donkey engines, had to be jacked up into firm contact with the turret base using a wedge before the turret could be operated." There are even better ways to phrase this, but it's a start.
Also recommend replacing: "When not in use, the turret rested on a brass ring on the deck that was intended to form a watertight seal but in service this proved to leak heavily, despite caulking by the crew." With: "When at sea, the brass ring on the deck was intended to form a watertight seal with the iron base of the turret, but in service this proved to leak heavily, despite caulking by the crew."§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.26.58 ( talk) 00:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)