Why three turrets remained unattractive to British battleship designers

Could three triple turrets free machinery space while giving a Queen Elizabeth derivative adequate firepower?

The Royal Navy was unlikely to accept that arrangement because one disabled turret removed one-third of the main battery; four triple turrets were more plausible, while three turrets appeared later under treaty pressure and remained unpopular.

Three triple turrets promised a compact battery and more room for machinery, but the arrangement concentrated a greater share of the guns in each mounting. One turret casualty would remove a third of the main battery, compared with a quarter in a four-turret ship. Four triple turrets are therefore considered more plausible for an unconstrained British battleship. Nelson and Rodney accepted three mountings under Washington Treaty restrictions. The later King George V comparison continues the argument that the Royal Navy preferred to distribute its main armament more widely.