All good points. Nobody tho' is suggesting the '3 turrets per hardpoint' thing. Up to 3 weapon mounts per hardpoint, yes. The quad .50 has four weapon mounts and is very nasty fired as a battery from one 'hardpoint'.
Actually, you are suggesting that a triple turret is three individual turrets, you just don’t realize it. The point (from a ‘logic/visualization’ perspective rather than a ‘what the rules say’ perspective) is that three weapons in a single turret acting as a ‘battery’ MUST shoot at the same target in a combat round. Any attempt to shoot at 3 different targets in the same combat round from the same triple turret requires either:
1) each weapon is individually aimed and functions (de-facto) as if is was a single turret (3 turrets on 1 hardpoint).
or
2) each weapon is able to shoot at it’s target for only 1/3 of a combat round.
If we assume that the first option (each weapon is individually aimed) is true, then your proposal to place 3 weapons in a turret and allowing each to function as a battery of 1 would function as 3 turrets on 1 hardpoint. In this case, each ‘battery’ requires a gunner to aim it. This violates the letter and spirit of the turret rules since each ship now has 3 turrets per 100 tons. If it functions like a turret, then any argument that “it is not really a turret, because …” is nothing but semantics.
Now disengage the linking mechanism and you have 4 individual .50's. The gunner is now capable of firing individual mounts at different targets over a twenty minute time span. Why would you do this? Because a quad .50 in most circumstances is overkill and chews through ammo damn quick.
This quote assumes that the second option (each weapon fires only part of the time) is the case. The problem with this interpretation is that there is no practical difference between one weapon and three. Using the MG as an example, a gunner who chooses to shoot one MG for 6-7 minutes, then change to a second MG and shoot it for another 6-7 minutes, then grab a third MG and shoot it for 6-7 minutes, would be identical to a gunner who shoots a single MG for the full 20 minutes. [Ignore barrel heating and ammo supply since neither is a limitation in HG.]
Just to make the point crystal clear: a gunner who chooses to aim one 250 MW laser at a target for 6-7 minutes, then aims a second 250 MW laser at a target for 6-7 minutes, then aims a third 250 MW laser at a target for 6-7 minutes, would be identical to a gunner who aims a single 250 MW laser at a target for the full 20 minutes. A gunner who chooses to aim and fire one missile launcher at a target in 6-7 minutes, then aims and fires a second missile launcher at a target in 6-7 minutes, then aims and fires a third missile launcher at a target in 6-7 minutes, would be identical to a gunner who aims and fires single missile launcher at a target three times in the full 20 minutes.
If a missile launcher or laser can aim, hit and damage a target in 6-7 minutes, then a single turret should be able to fire three times in 20 minutes at up to 3 different targets. If a missile launcher or laser requires the full 20 minutes to aim, hit and damage a target, then a mixed triple turret with three batteries should only be able to fire one of it’s weapons at one target in 20 minutes (or each weapon should be only 1/3 as effective).
Regardless, I'm not sure the .50 makes a good example either way.
Actually, the .50 MG makes a fair analogy for a laser. The MG fires a stream of bullets from an extensive belt of ammo that destroys a target through the cumulative damage of many hits over time. The Laser fires a stream of photons from an extensive capacitor of energy that destroys a target through the cumulative damage of energy absorbed over time.
