This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all
Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
join the project, or contribute to the
project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
hexagonal geometry
to my knowledge, no french pre-dreadnought had this gun geometry, thus the statement that was abandoned seems a confusion with the german navy. pietro
151.29.185.59 (
talk)
18:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)reply
You are correct that the French never arranged their primary guns that way, but they were very fond of four wing turrets for the secondary armament which amounted to much the same thing.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
19:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The hexagonal mixed armament was diffuse on the pre-dreadnought: the last US ships had 4/305+8/203, the italian Pisa and San Giorgio 4/254+8/190, the russian Pavel I had 4/305+8/203 (plus other 203 in battery), the russian Rurik II 4/254+8/203, the Radetzky 4/305+8/240 ... But this geometry was never used on the french vessels: the Danton had 12/240 in SIX wing turrets and all the former vessels had more than 4 wing turrets. If you mean that the french engineers reduced the importance of the wing turrets you are perfectly correct (indeed, the reduction is even more important than starting from the hexagonal geometry), but the statement that the previous vessels has the hexagonal geometry is not correct. pietro
151.29.185.59 (
talk)
10:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all
Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
join the project, or contribute to the
project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
hexagonal geometry
to my knowledge, no french pre-dreadnought had this gun geometry, thus the statement that was abandoned seems a confusion with the german navy. pietro
151.29.185.59 (
talk)
18:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)reply
You are correct that the French never arranged their primary guns that way, but they were very fond of four wing turrets for the secondary armament which amounted to much the same thing.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
19:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The hexagonal mixed armament was diffuse on the pre-dreadnought: the last US ships had 4/305+8/203, the italian Pisa and San Giorgio 4/254+8/190, the russian Pavel I had 4/305+8/203 (plus other 203 in battery), the russian Rurik II 4/254+8/203, the Radetzky 4/305+8/240 ... But this geometry was never used on the french vessels: the Danton had 12/240 in SIX wing turrets and all the former vessels had more than 4 wing turrets. If you mean that the french engineers reduced the importance of the wing turrets you are perfectly correct (indeed, the reduction is even more important than starting from the hexagonal geometry), but the statement that the previous vessels has the hexagonal geometry is not correct. pietro
151.29.185.59 (
talk)
10:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply