Could Britain have chosen a better dual-purpose gun route?

Would developing the 4.7-inch gun have been better than pursuing the 5.25-inch weapon?

Possibly, because it could have covered roles later assigned to 4.5-inch and 5.25-inch guns; the better answer would have been to fix the earlier 5-inch programme and its political problems.

The choice is a trade-off rather than a simple calibre contest. A developed 4.7-inch dual-purpose weapon might have covered some of the roles later divided between the 4.5-inch and 5.25-inch guns. In this interpretation, the stronger outcome would have been to repair the earlier British 5-inch programme. Its failure arose as much from political and design-management decisions associated with Beatty and Chatfield as from the weapon's underlying technology.