4.7-inch dual-purpose mount tradeoffs

Could the Royal Navy have built a 4.7-inch dual-purpose mount with very high elevation, or even a triple mount, as an alternative to the 4.5-inch gun?

Only with real penalties: recoil paths, shock absorption, loading, bracing, mount weight, and crew working space would all have made the extra elevation or triple layout much less attractive than it looks on paper.

Changing the last five degrees of elevation changes the whole mount. Power gear is only one concern because recoil, loading, shock absorption, deck loads, and the direction of force all affect the required structure. The rough comparison suggests that the added bracing could make four mounts capable of 85 degrees preferable to only three capable of 90 degrees at the same total weight. Triple mounts create a separate human-factors problem because loaders must work in a cramped shared space. The discussion also declines to choose among German, French, Italian, or Japanese destroyer-gun alternatives without their technical specifications. Practical firepower depends on elevation, weight, crew space, and a rate of fire that sailors can sustain.