The Radetzky class were actually a semi-dreadnoughts, and were intentionally designed as such. Perhaps the Royal Navy would try to build to a qualitative advantage, retaining weapons larger than 12' into the 1890s and improving performance in other areas? The pre-dreadnought might simply grow into a larger ship if the Royal Navy responds with thicker armor and larger guns, since A-P-Y would be more difficult to retain with larger guns and the need for increased armor and performance. I think the Royal Navy probably would prefer the A-Y arrangement, but there is the question of how they would respond if other nations started building A-P-Y ships. Someone could try to have the Navy acquire two A-P-Y ships for instead of three A-Y ships.ДЇleets with a fleet focused less on colonial operations might also be interested in A-P-Y ships for similar reasons, and because a reduction in range and speed might be more acceptable to them. The United States Navy was starting a large naval expansion program in the 1890s, and Congress was always rather cost conscious until around World War I. Of course, it ultimately led to the dreadnought arms race. The increased firepower of dreadnoughts led many politicians to support them as a cost saving measure, since less ships would be required for similar capability. Finally cost is the big one, the RN has a lot of commitments so needs numbers, and there is also the fact that a larger number of 2 turret designs has greater end on end fire than a smaller number of 3 turret designs.

The RN might be willing to compromise on protection to some degree, but not that much.

Likewise the RN is powerful enough any opponent is likely to fight asymmetrically, so the faster firing secondaries become more important to deal with smaller craft, so no compromise there. The RN needs all the range and speed it can get so compromising on that is a no go. I don't think that it will become standard.Д«ecoming standard requires being adopted by the RN. In exchange for that 50% increase you are either weakening the belt, reducing the number of faster firing secondaries, or reducing speed/range, making the ship more expensive, or all four. Yes you have 50% more heavy broadside fire, but you have no increase in end on end fire. Might these advantages be enough to see the A-P-Y configuration adopted as the standard layout for pre-dreadnought battleships? If adopted, what kind of impact might it have on the development of the semi-dreadnought and dreadnought schools of battleship design going into the 1900s?

Of course, it still results in 50% more main guns relative to an A-Y ship, and with three turrets a ship retains two functioning turrets should one be disabled or destroyed during combat. While the A-P-Y configuration doesn't inherently cause superstructure damage, it does result in design compromises, taking up space ordinarily used by coal and machinery and requiring more armor to protect the turret and barbette, as well as potentially requiring the armored belt to take up a larger proportion of the ship. The A-P-Y configuration didn't become popular at the time due to to the superstructure damage caused when the center turret fired, but the the turret was more awkwardly placed compared to later designs. This was in contrast to the typical design used by most pre-dreadnought battleships, which featured only two twin turrets in an A-Y configuration, with one turret fore and one turret aft. Interestingly for the era, the Brandenburg class battleships featured three twin turrets in an A-P-Y configuration: one turret fore, one turret center, and one turret aft. The Brandenburg class was the first oceangoing battleship design of the Imperial German Navy.

Ac3d pre dreadnought