Could Agincourt have carried three triple 15-inch turrets?

Was the cancelled Agincourt intended to carry nine 15-inch guns in three triple turrets?

Drachinifel favours that reconstruction because it fits 15-inch standardisation and saves internal space, while Clarke favours larger guns in familiar twin turrets. Missing design papers prevent either proposal from being proved.

Three triple 15-inch turrets would fit the contemporary movement toward a common gun calibre across British capital ships. Small-tube boilers alone seem insufficient to explain cancellation for technical complexity because the Royal Navy already used them elsewhere. A twelve-gun arrangement in four triples would require larger barbettes, greater beam and more length, taking the ship too far from a Queen Elizabeth derivative. Three triples would instead add one gun while shortening the space occupied by barbettes and magazines, leaving more room for machinery. Drachinifel regards this as the more conservative alternative to twin 18-inch turrets, especially because British manufacturers had already built triple turrets for export by 1913-1914. Clarke disagrees: the Royal Navy had repeatedly preferred larger guns in familiar twin mountings to the complications of adopting triples. He also considers the American move toward 16-inch guns a reason Britain might choose a larger calibre for status. The disagreement concerns which combination of industrial experience and Royal Navy preferences best explains a design whose drawings have not survived.