This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Aviation / Land vehicles / Maritime / Technology / Weaponry / Operation Majestic Titan C‑class 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Military land vehicles task force Maritime warfare task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Operation Majestic Titan (Phase V) Technology C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

IIRC, the Martin B-10's turret was unpowered, i.e., hand operated, but I could be wrong, although I seem to remember that the Argentine Air Force received some B-10s and their turrets were unpowered. Boulton Paul were among the leaders in powered turret design. While they may have been developing them, the US had no powered turrets on it's aircraft until after they received technology from Boulton Paul and Nash & Thomson (Frazer Nash) from the UK. See the early Fortresses, Liberators, Bostons, etc. The gun positions on US aircraft were generally the same as on contemporary German designs, i.e., hand operated, and I don't think I've ever seen a US aircraft with a recognisable power-operated turret in any picture taken before Pearl Harbor, and the RAF's Fortresses (B-17C/Ds) were un-equipped. The power-operated aircraft gun turret was, along with many others, one of the technologies transferred to the US by the Tizard Mission, and subsequently Martin did perhaps become the US' leading manufacturer, along with Briggs-Sperry. IIRC, Boulton Paul turrets were installed on early Liberators when they arrived in the UK, and were the first Liberators so-armed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.199 (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose, weapon mount is barely a dictionary entry. It might be useful as a jumping off point for other articles, but given the extent of coverage of the gun turret possible there is little point in merging to just spin off again later. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose; turret is to weapon mount as cheese is to dairy product; a specific type of a much larger category, with its own long history, occurring in many flavours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.49.61 (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

. . . 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)Reply[reply]

"Little Willie" was designed form the start with a turret but it was never fitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

There's scope for sub-articles on lots of these turret types. Aircraft gun turret is an obvious one, so thanks for creating it. Now we can start moving inbound links.

There's also the aspect that some aircraft have casemate mounts rather than turrets. We did have this distinction once, but they were largely renamed (incorrectly) as turrets by one of those omniscient unsourced editors 8-(

I think Aircraft gun mount might eventually become a set index article, but not really a content article. The content beneath it should stay in separate articles: turret, casemate, free mounts from a cockpit, like Scarff rings, gun pod or others. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

aircraft gun turret isn't really either natural English or wiki-article titling. Aircraft turret possibly? but more likely gun turret (aircraft) or just turret (aircraft)? Aircraft gun mount - I'd say Aircraft gun mounting - there is weapon mount which has definition for pintle already and a redirect from Pintle mount. But is there much scope for more than a dicdef? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes... "Turret (aircraft)" sounds much more natural English. And I'd say that we should rule out "Aircraft gun mounting" since "Weapon mount" is the more inclusive article describing all possible mounts for all kind of vehicles, aircraft or not. Thus, there will be enough rational sense (and packed material) for a "Turret (aircraft)" article, but there will be not that same rational and encyclopedic sense for an "Aircraft gun mounting" article... That's what I think. Kintaro (talk) 05:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"UAV turret" has become the standard term for rotatable sensor mountings on unmanned air vehicles. Similar or identical mountings are put on helicopters and on fixed wing aircraft - for example six RAF Nimrod MR2s were fitted with L-3 Wescam MX-15 electro-optical turrets. If you want an article on aircraft gun turrets, then the article title needs to have "gun" or "weapon" in it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might be argued the use of sensor mountings on drones etc could probably lie outside WP:CommonName, but that thought leads me to gun turret (aircraft). PS looking at turret (disambiguation), I spotted Missile turret which was new to me. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok then, If everybody is okey dokey, lets create Gun turret (aircraft)... Kintaro (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

Agreed, hence why I've already removed the ((disambig)) Andy Dingley (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a good start! Thanks. Check the talk page there, where I stashed some text in anticipation of an article. — Gorthian (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

It's not the clearest article. The first "rotating drum" or "cheesebox" turrets were mounted on the deck. As guns became larger, elevating them required that they had to lower their breeches lower than the deck level. Also they needed more turret armour than the simple drum turrets could provide. So turrets were replaced by barbettes: open pits with heavily armoured, fixed walls. A deck within this mount rotated with the guns. These were unprotected from above though, so were exposed to fire from the developing technique of exploding shells and shrapnel. Thus they were protected by the gunhouse; this looked like a turret and rotated with the guns, but was of quite different origin. As the guns moved to breech loading, the trunk developed as a series of decks within the barbette, rotating as part of the mount. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[ii] used rows of gunport-mounted guns on each side of the ship, often mounted in casemates. Firepower was provided by a large number of guns, each of which could traverse only in a limited arc.

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)Reply[reply]

IMHO, if the central battery isn't a turret, then it's a casemate. This may well be a different meaning of casemate, for how it became later (often with more, small, QF guns against torpedo boats) but it's still a csasemate.

The real focus of this section as I see it though is about pre-Dreadnoughts, after the central batteries. These are not so obvious a group in British practice (but see the Formidables), but look at the French battleships, and the Russian ships they influenced. Those are positively steampunk for all the various casemates dotted around them, many of them so low as to have freeboard problems. Of course the Queen Elizabeths' too have casemate freeboard problems, leading to them being plated over. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first sentence says that it is talking about the mid-19th Century, not the early 20th.

The issue you mentioned about flooding of casemates applied just as much to turret and barbette mounted guns. One important factor is the combination of the speed of the ship and the height above the waterline of the gunport (or other opening) - a faster ship needs to carry its guns higher.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So maybe the date range wants adjusting? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought the whole point of the first two sentences was to explain how in the mid-19th Century battleships (then called line-of-battle ships) had large numbers of guns mounted in the sides of the ship, with limited traverse, and then turrets came in... -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know of no turrets or barbettes that were set as low as the casemates were. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For secondary battery turrets try File:French_battleship_Charles_Martel.png. You will notice that the foremost secondary turret is one deck higher than the others, in an effort to avoid flooding caused by the bow wave.

If you want an examples of main armament barbettes flooding - the 1880s/90s Admiral-class battleships had a problem with it at speed - water got in through the openings in the top of the fore barbette. The 1940s Scharnhorst-class battleship had a problem with it affecting the A "turret" and (if damaged) the B "turret" - this was particularly serious as they were electric turrets.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]