Yeah I think I will do that, what about the Nelson class? I do love that gun arrangement, but what was the effect on armor layout for that ship? That was a 3x3 but arranged all front.
The all forward saves weight if you are willing to have different protection for mags v ER/BR like RN did, as it saves on the protected bulkheads between stronger and weaker parts.
Ie in a N&R (3x3 ABC)you can have 1 forward strong bulkhead and then 2 weaker ones between Mags/ER and again at stern after BR, compared to a 'normal' (3x3 ABX) that needs a extra bulkhead in front of the stern X mags as well) the problem is that you have worse arcs and in late 30s with the development of magnetic (mines/torpedoes) you risk losing all the main guns to one hit flooding all the Mags.
I would add historically you need about 8 guns to get good salvoes and be able to hit things at long range and more is really a waste and you should go for a larger calibre of guns.
(6 in 3x2 or 2x3 doesn't really give you sufficient guns to salvo well and only have 2 mounts in one case is bad from a DC standpoint)
(8 in 4x2 or 2x4 gives you ideal number of guns but in one is very wasteful of length and therefore weight and the other suffers from DC issues again)
(9 in 3x3 is good as get 1 gun almost 'free' due to saving on weight from shorter length and don't get the only 2 mount DC worry)
(10 in 2x4+1x2 is just a oddity caused by treaty limits 14"/35,000t and RN being the only ones who had to rush and stick to the limits and you get the problem of 2 different turret designs)
I would suggest that with hindsight in 1919-43 the 3x3 in an ABX arrangement is the way to go, with the alternatives of 4x2 if old school or 2x4 is you want to look new. (IMO pre 1919 you should go 4x2 and post 43 you should be building a CV)