IJN, Post-1900

[Logi]

Like I said, if speed is the only goal of a scout, I can do that with a stripped bare destroyer... it'll have enough misc weight for a long-range wireless and it'll be operating at >30kn, a speed that larger vessels can't even hope to match.

There's no point blowing 4000t on a slower cruiser that does exactly the same thing since it has no armor to speak of and no armament to speak of either.

[Walter]

Suzuya and Kumano were Mogami-class ships which were most definitely Heavy Cruisers

True, when they were build they were pretty much heavy cruisers just as your design is a light cruiser (and thus should be using the light cruiser tech)...

I didn't mention any of the older Japanese ships because I didn't have a book on hand about them.

The problem is that that would be more period accurate. Comparing your design with ships of which the oldest is OTL some 15 years away from our current sim point is not accurate so only the Tone and Chikuma would be proper comparisons.

There's no scout cruisers smaller than 5,000t which can manage >23 kn without being completely worthless in both armament and armor.

Isn't that what a scout cruiser is all about? Cheap and expendable?

Looking at the warshipsww2 site (which is probably as questionable as wiki) at those listed as scout cruisers, you're looking at stuff that is roughly between 2500 and 4000 tons, has a speed of around 25 knots, 4 inch guns in single mounts (for the British ones), sometimes a little bit of belt armor, sometimes a little bit of deck armor, sometimes a little bit of both.


HMS Adventure: 2640 tons (full), 9x1 4", 25 kts, 0.5-2" deck
HMS Forward: 2860 tons (full), 9x1 4", 25 knots, 2" belt, 0.5-1" deck
HMS Pathfinder: 2900 tons (full), 9x1 4", 25 knots, 2" belt, 0.5-1" deck
HMS Sentinel: 2880 tons (full), 9x1 4", 25 knots, 0.5-1.5" deck
HMS Boadicea: 3300 tons (normal), 6x1 4", 25 knots, 1" deck
HMS Blonde: 3350 tons (normal), 10x1 4", 24.5 knots, 1.5" deck
HMS Active: 3440 tons (normal), 10x1 4", 25 knots, 1" deck
USS Chester: 3750 tons(??), 2x1 5", 26.52 (trial) knots, 2" belt
SMS Helgoland: 4010 tons (full), 9x1 100mm, 27 knots, 60mm belt, 20mm deck
SMS Admiral Spaun: 4000 tons (full), 7x1 100mm, 27 knots, 60mm belt, 20mm deck

When I look at your scout cruiser, I am looking at something that resembles a slow 1930 heavy cruiser squeezed into a hull that is 59% the size of that heavy cruiser and which is transported some 25 years into the past. To me, the more I look at it, the more I think that it is too modern with that layout (and the same should be true for the Yubari design). Too much late 1920s and 1930s IMO.

24kn and 4,300t light... that's after going to 4x2 152mm and removing the 152mm secondaries.

If you are going to 4x2 152mm, you will definitely need the 1910 light cruiser tech...

Like I said, if speed is the only goal of a scout, I can do that with a stripped bare destroyer...

You could, but you might lack range with that option for it to be a proper scout...

[snip]

For what its worth, here is what I have earmarked for the first US turbine ship. Its a full blown scout, and would likely be overwhelmed by a pair of Destroyers. But it has the turn of speed to outrun any cruiser aflot that can outgun it. Cheap enough that lots can be built. Likely the best option until the next level of turbines comes around.

USS Morgantown, United States Cruiser laid down 1905

Displacement:
   3,000 t light; 3,099 t standard; 3,728 t normal; 4,231 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (429.92 ft / 423.00 ft) x 46.00 ft x (17.00 / 18.48 ft)
   (131.04 m / 128.93 m) x 14.02 m  x (5.18 / 5.63 m)

Armament:
      4 - 5.00" / 127 mm 50.0 cal guns - 50.00lbs / 22.68kg shells, 210 per gun
     Breech loading guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1905 Model
     4 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
      1 raised mount aft - superfiring
      4 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1.00lbs / 0.45kg shells, 500 per gun
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1905 Model
     4 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 204 lbs / 93 kg

Armour:
   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   0.50" / 13 mm   0.25" / 6 mm      0.50" / 13 mm
   2nd:   0.25" / 6 mm         -               -

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 20,000 shp / 14,920 Kw = 25.38 kts
   Range 7,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,132 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   238 - 310

Cost:
   £0.367 million / $1.467 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 81 tons, 2.2 %
      - Guns: 81 tons, 2.2 %
   Armour: 10 tons, 0.3 %
      - Armament: 10 tons, 0.3 %
   Machinery: 1,667 tons, 44.7 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,217 tons, 32.7 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 728 tons, 19.5 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 25 tons, 0.7 %
      - On freeboard deck: 25 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     2,190 lbs / 993 Kg = 35.0 x 5.0 " / 127 mm shells or 0.6 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.66
   Metacentric height 3.6 ft / 1.1 m
   Roll period: 10.2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.08
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.45

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.394 / 0.412
   Length to Beam Ratio: 9.20 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 20.57 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: -5.00 ft / -1.52 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   20.00 %,  19.00 ft / 5.79 m,  19.00 ft / 5.79 m
      - Forward deck:   15.00 %,  19.00 ft / 5.79 m,  19.00 ft / 5.79 m
      - Aft deck:   50.00 %,  10.00 ft / 3.05 m,  10.00 ft / 3.05 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  10.00 ft / 3.05 m,  10.00 ft / 3.05 m
      - Average freeboard:      13.15 ft / 4.01 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 151.7 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 115.3 %
   Waterplane Area: 11,929 Square feet or 1,108 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 102 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 66 lbs/sq ft or 322 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.96
      - Longitudinal: 1.40
      - Overall: 1.00
   Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Adequate accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

[Walter]

I think that 0.394 is too low for a cruiser, Snip...

I was messing around a bit earlier with this... Probably not the best, but it will fit in a Type I dock or on a type I slip... This is a bit more like what I would expect a scout cruiser to be, not like the KJ5/6000. Lightly armed, lightly armored, decent high speed.

Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1905

Displacement:
   2,971 t light; 3,068 t standard; 3,563 t normal; 3,960 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (392.85 ft / 390.00 ft) x 41.00 ft x (15.00 / 16.28 ft)
   (119.74 m / 118.87 m) x 12.50 m  x (4.57 / 4.96 m)

Armament:
      2 - 4.72" / 120 mm 40.0 cal guns - 50.71lbs / 23.00kg shells, 150 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1905 Model
     2 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
      8 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 12.68lbs / 5.75kg shells, 300 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1905 Model
     8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      40 - 0.43" / 11.0 mm 58.0 cal guns - 0.04lbs / 0.02kg shells, 700 per gun
     Machine guns in deck mounts, 1905 Model
     4 x 2 row decuple mounts on side ends, evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 205 lbs / 93 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   1.50" / 38 mm   390.00 ft / 118.87 m   7.50 ft / 2.29 m
     Main Belt covers 154% of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   1.00" / 25 mm         -         1.00" / 25 mm
   2nd:   1.00" / 25 mm         -         1.00" / 25 mm

   - Protected deck - single deck:
   For and Aft decks: 1.00" / 25 mm
   Forecastle: 0.50" / 13 mm  Quarter deck: 0.50" / 13 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 18,301 shp / 13,653 Kw = 24.50 kts
   Range 6,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 891 tons (90% coal)

Complement:
   229 - 299

Cost:
   £0.334 million / $1.337 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 57 tons, 1.6%
      - Guns: 57 tons, 1.6%
   Armour: 369 tons, 10.4%
      - Belts: 162 tons, 4.6%
      - Armament: 23 tons, 0.7%
      - Armour Deck: 184 tons, 5.2%
   Machinery: 1,502 tons, 42.2%
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 993 tons, 27.9%
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 592 tons, 16.6%
   Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 1.4%
      - On freeboard deck: 50 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     2,023 lbs / 917 Kg = 38.4 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 0.6 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.40
   Metacentric height 2.4 ft / 0.7 m
   Roll period: 11.2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 73 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.11
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.11

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.520 / 0.532
   Length to Beam Ratio: 9.51 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 19.75 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 66
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 9.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   20.00%,  18.00 ft / 5.49 m,  17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Forward deck:   20.00%,  17.00 ft / 5.18 m,  17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Aft deck:   45.00%,  8.00 ft / 2.44 m,  8.00 ft / 2.44 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00%,  8.00 ft / 2.44 m,  8.00 ft / 2.44 m
      - Average freeboard:      11.68 ft / 3.56 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 142.0%
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 97.2%
   Waterplane Area: 10,851 Square feet or 1,008 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 98%
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 60 lbs/sq ft or 294 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.99
      - Longitudinal: 1.11
      - Overall: 1.00
   Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Adequate accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

[Logi]

All beaten by a humble Kaba... (Pst Japan will have 12 colliers or more in 1904, range is the smallest concern Japan will have out of pretty much all the current navies in N-verse)

Unless you have a 3,000t cruiser proposal that performs the scouting function better than this 500t Kaba, the idea of an expendable scout cruiser of 3,000t is a worthless waste of resources.

Kaba, Japanese Destroyer laid down 1904 (Engine 1905)

Displacement:
   500 t light; 528 t standard; 650 t normal; 748 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (278.87 ft / 278.87 ft) x 19.03 ft x (9.19 / 10.18 ft)
   (85.00 m / 85.00 m) x 5.80 m  x (2.80 / 3.10 m)

Armament:
      3 - 4.72" / 120 mm 45.0 cal guns - 45.00lbs / 20.41kg shells, 200 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1904 Model
     3 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 135 lbs / 61 kg

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 8,631 shp / 6,439 Kw = 26.00 kts
   Range 4,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 220 tons (90% coal)

Trial Speed: 28.50 kts

Complement:
   63 - 83

Cost:
   £0.073 million / $0.291 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 28 tons, 4.3 %
      - Guns: 28 tons, 4.3 %
   Machinery: 340 tons, 52.2 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 107 tons, 16.4 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 150 tons, 23.1 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 26 tons, 4.0 %
      - On freeboard deck: 26 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     120 lbs / 54 Kg = 2.3 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.20
   Metacentric height 0.6 ft / 0.2 m
   Roll period: 10.5 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.52
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.01

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.467 / 0.484
   Length to Beam Ratio: 14.66 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 16.70 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 69
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   20.00 %,  9.19 ft / 2.80 m,  7.55 ft / 2.30 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  7.55 ft / 2.30 m,  7.55 ft / 2.30 m
      - Aft deck:   30.00 %,  7.55 ft / 2.30 m,  7.55 ft / 2.30 m
      - Quarter deck:   20.00 %,  7.55 ft / 2.30 m,  7.55 ft / 2.30 m
      - Average freeboard:      7.68 ft / 2.34 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 180.8 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 78.3 %
   Waterplane Area: 3,433 Square feet or 319 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 43 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 18 lbs/sq ft or 89 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.50
      - Longitudinal: 0.70
      - Overall: 0.51
   Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Cramped accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Misc Weight (26t):
   25t - Long Range Wireless
     1t - 1x450mm single TT, no reloads

[snip]

I think that 0.394 is too low for a cruiser, Snip...

Its a almost identical copy of the historical Chester class. .380 is the lowest our rules allow and this is definitely a fast ship for the period.

[Walter]

All beaten by a humble Kaba... (Pst Japan will have 12 colliers or more in 1904, range is the smallest concern Japan will have out of pretty much all the current navies in N-verse)

Well, my design was just something I threw out quickly while looking at those scout cruisers I listed. Not really a serious attempt. I'm pretty sure I can do better than that. Also the Kaba will go down after only a pair of shots. You will need a lot more than a pair of shots for my Enter ship name design or Snip's Morgantown design to go down. Still it would be a better option as scout than your cruiser design.

Unless you have a 3,000t cruiser proposal that performs the scouting function better than this 500t Kaba, the idea of an expendable scout cruiser of 3,000t is a worthless waste of resources.

Well, I feel that mine and Snip's are less than a waste of resources compared to yours and a lot more realistic for this era for that size is (I think that the ship tech trees are flawed at this point; will we see a Yamato in 1915?). Also I guess that there is a reason that the scout cruisers listed on the warshipsww2 site are limited to the ~1905-1915 era... Nations obviously realized that it would be better and cheaper to use DDs for that job as they get better instead of those cruisers.

When I think of a ~1905 scout cruiser, I think of this..

... and not of this...

Its a almost identical copy of the historical Chester class

Funny cause I listed that one in the list of Scout Cruisers. Never looked at the other stats of the ship. Throwing them quickly into SS does suggest that.

BTW, I remember getting a lot of flak at the very, very beginning of Wesworld when I had twin mount superfiring guns on my startup cruisers and those were 10-15 years more modern than the ones in this thread...

[snip]

The Length:Beam ratio on the Kaba is way high at 14.66:1. 12:1 is the max under the rules, but under most situations 10:1 is preferable.

[Walter]

The Length:Beam ratio on the Kaba is way high at 14.66:1. 12:1 is the max under the rules, but under most situations 10:1 is preferable

I actually missed that one. It was obviously done to get the seakeeping up to 1.00 but for small DDs and TBs (especially of this era) that does not mean much. Still with that very high l:b ratio, I guess that the blast from a single 120mm hit might be more than enough to snap a Kaba in two even if SS says that it'll take 2.3 hits.

[Logi]

The Kaba is also something I threw together in a jiffy. The length was not done for seakeeping.... you lose more strength being a longer ship than you do having a higher freeboard for the same seakeeping. It was long because it was original modeled on some historical IJN destroyers. But the specifics of the design isn't as important as the point I'm trying to make:

I feel the emphasis on "looks" modern is not helpful in any fashion because it stifles all designs. We had this discussion in the previous iteration of N-verse (4.5 or something?) where anything that wasn't the cookie cutter A-Y Pre-dreadnought was "too modern".

I don't like using pictures as basis for comparisons because it's easy to draw false equivalences. The Country class, for example, has a much taller and longer superstructure, the turrets can fire ahead and are integrated into the superstructure. The County also has a scout plane, much more armor, much more secondaries, much higher speed, and much more range. Oh and the hull characteristics are completely different.

In fact the only thing it is similar in is that it has 4x2 200mm guns.


Draft for KJ6000 which is directly a lengthened OTL Asama-cruiser with the addition of 2x200mm guns

It has only superficial similarities. The train of logic with equating a KJ6000 or KJ5000 design with the County-class is about the same as saying the following:
The J20 Chinese fighter has a delta wing and the F22 has a delta wing, therefore the J20 is a copy of the F22.
Superficial similarities that ignore that form follows function. Not to mention the vast differences in the designs is overlooked.

If I made a USS South Carolina design would it too advanced? After the USN built pretty much the same ship all the way up to 1921! In fact in Friedman, he says C&R claimed to have proposed a similar design two years before 1904, as an alternative design to the Connecticut.

Rather the question should be... why are there no cruisers with 8" guns of the same nature before 1930?
As I understand it, it is because the Washington Naval Treaty didn't happen yet! In fact no nation had built any such cruiser before 1930, since they preferred to increase the size of the main battery rather than the number. There are multiple cruisers across nations that preferred to increase the main battery armament's diameter rather than number. Hence you saw escalations from 2x2 7.5" to 9.2" to 10" and above. All weight wasted which could have been spent on more guns of the same caliber.

Why not? After all, designers obviously had produced designs like the South Carolina before and super-firing dreadnoughts were produced at the same time as these ships. Well, in the records we often see that these cruisers are regarded as mini-Battlecruisers or miniature Battleships. In other words, integration into the battle-line to defeat enemy battleships.

The armored cruiser was increasingly designed to defeat enemy battleships, not cruisers. In fact, the role of a cruiser-killer seemed largely unfilled. I believe it due to the fact that cruisers were thought of as solo-operatives. In other words, cruisers would never participate in a naval battle and were mainly relegated to shipping harassment and avoiding the enemy. (In fact this can be seen in the career of the SMS Emden and other cruisers) So there is no point to a large number of 200mm guns since they won't penetrate battleship armor.

This line of thought was continued and consumed by the Invincible class battlecruisers. When the Invincible class was laid down, designers from all the world's navies abandoned the armored cruiser because it was regarded that the Invincible would beat all of them. In addition by that point in many naval circles, designers were questioning the place of an armored cruiser and that resulted in pretty much a 20 year absence of armored cruisers from 1905 to the 1920s when the WNT was signed.

If in fact, someone also designed an Invincible class ships in N-verse now, I would scrap the KJ-series design just as fast. Japan would then also abandon all plans of an armored cruiser and instead move towards battlecruisers and destroyer-killing cruisers.

Another issue is that historically, national budgets were budgeted on number of ships not combined displacement of ships. When a displacement limit was given it was simply a cap on max displacement. There was no reward for going far under the limit. Therefore there was little incentive for naval designers to go down the scale towards very light ships rather than heavy ships. In fact, doing so would actually constrain their budgets since the government would actually budget less for the navy as time went on rather than more. Only a larger and larger displacement of ship ensured that the government would budget more for the navy as time went on. At one point in the USN, they note a revision to a design to a ship which would have reduced displacement. They decided not to go for it because Congress would lower the amount of budget the navy could spend if they saw ships were getting smaller. All these topics are discussed the design of ships of the USN during this period. You can find these topics in most reputable books like Friedman, etc.

All these combine to explain why we don't see historical examples of 4x2 20cm ships until the 1920s.

Another issue is: The British navy was late to adopt superfiring turrets. The USN never adopted high speed vessels in the era. Are we therefore forced to pick either one of the two design choices? This is the same as the cookie cutter AY problem.

Oh, and this isn't Wesworld. There are many undesirable characteristics of Wesworld I would prefer to keep out of Navalism.

PS: I think your idea of the role and function of a Scout Cruiser differs from my own, so we'll need to talk about that too.

[Logi]

It is easy to get under 12 LB ratio and fit in a Type 0.
Can your cruiser fit a Type 0, hit these tiny and quick destroyers, and deal with the torpedoes?

Your cruiser also has 3.6x the waterplane area of this Kaba destroyer, going at 24.5 instead of 28kn and thus will be significantly easier to hit. Did I mention the turn radius will probably be significantly better on the destroyer too?

Kaba, Japanese Destroyer laid down 1904 (Engine 1905)

Displacement:
   500 t light; 520 t standard; 641 t normal; 738 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (229.66 ft / 229.66 ft) x 19.36 ft x (11.75 / 12.96 ft)
   (70.00 m / 70.00 m) x 5.90 m  x (3.58 / 3.95 m)

Armament:
      2 - 4.72" / 120 mm 45.0 cal guns - 45.00lbs / 20.41kg shells, 150 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1904 Model
     2 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 90 lbs / 41 kg

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 8,862 shp / 6,611 Kw = 25.50 kts
   Range 4,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 218 tons (90% coal)

Trial Speed: 28.00 kts

Complement:
   63 - 82

Cost:
   £0.070 million / $0.281 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 19 tons, 2.9 %
      - Guns: 19 tons, 2.9 %
   Machinery: 340 tons, 53.1 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 110 tons, 17.1 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 141 tons, 22.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 31 tons, 4.8 %
      - On freeboard deck: 31 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     117 lbs / 53 Kg = 2.2 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
   Metacentric height 0.5 ft / 0.2 m
   Roll period: 11.1 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.38
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.01

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.430 / 0.448
   Length to Beam Ratio: 11.86 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 15.15 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 62 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 70
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   20.00 %,  9.84 ft / 3.00 m,  8.53 ft / 2.60 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  8.53 ft / 2.60 m,  7.87 ft / 2.40 m
      - Aft deck:   30.00 %,  7.87 ft / 2.40 m,  7.87 ft / 2.40 m
      - Quarter deck:   20.00 %,  7.87 ft / 2.40 m,  7.87 ft / 2.40 m
      - Average freeboard:      8.21 ft / 2.50 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 179.2 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 67.8 %
   Waterplane Area: 2,791 Square feet or 259 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 42 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 19 lbs/sq ft or 95 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.50
      - Longitudinal: 1.52
      - Overall: 0.55
   Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Cramped accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Misc Weight: 31t
   25t - Long-Range Wireless
     7t - 3 x 1 45cm TT rotating centerline, with one reload each + 1 spare torpedo

[snip]

Let me say the drawing makes me feel better about the design. I think calling it a "tin clad" is a bit extreme given the Morgantown, maybe Scout Armored Cruiser might be a better fit.

[Walter]

I don't like using pictures as basis for comparisons because it's easy to draw false equivalences.

I used the pic of the County because it had 4x2 8" with 2 superfiring turrets and was the first I ran across.

... but if you don't like that comparison, I will put it a little bit differently now you have that picture up there...

When I think of a ~1905 scout cruiser, I think of something like this...


... and not of this...

Draft for KJ6000 which is directly a lengthened OTL Asama-cruiser with the addition of 2x200mm guns

Considering the amount of stuff that is on the Asama between A turret and X turret not sure that the additional 10 meters would be enough... Can you fit those 11 boats on your design?

why are there no cruisers with 8" guns of the same nature before 1930?

Actually there were a number of them...

As I understand it, it is because the Washington Naval Treaty didn't happen yet! In fact no nation had built any such cruiser before 1930, since they preferred to increase the size of the main battery rather than the number.

... so are you talking about the Washington Naval Treaty and 1920 or are you talking about the London Naval Treaty and 1930? You got me confused now.

Hence you saw escalations from 2x2 7.5" to 9.2" to 10" and above. All weight wasted which could have been spent on more guns of the same caliber.

Even so, you could at least have expected them to come up with just one design with a 4x2 9.2" or 4x2 10" design with superfiring turrets in that time frame. But then, you are comparing your ship to big armored cruisers and not with the smaller light cruisers which yours actually is. Having looked at them, they seem pretty consistent when it comes to the main gun caliber (~6") but having looked quickly at numerous light cruisers I have not seen any using a twin mount 6" which should be a lot easier to achieve on a 5-6000 tons ship than twin 8" turrets with barbettes.

Why not? After all, designers obviously had produced designs like the South Carolina before and super-firing dreadnoughts were produced at the same time as these ships. Well, in the records we often see that these cruisers are regarded as mini-Battlecruisers or miniature Battleships. In other words, integration into the battle-line to defeat enemy battleships.

The armored cruiser was increasingly designed to defeat enemy battleships, not cruisers. In fact, the role of a cruiser-killer seemed largely unfilled. I believe it due to the fact that cruisers were thought of as solo-operatives. In other words, cruisers would never participate in a naval battle and were mainly relegated to shipping harassment and avoiding the enemy. (In fact this can be seen in the career of the SMS Emden and other cruisers) So there is no point to a large number of 200mm guns since they won't penetrate battleship armor.

This line of thought was continued and consumed by the Invincible class battlecruisers. When the Invincible class was laid down, designers from all the world's navies abandoned the armored cruiser because it was regarded that the Invincible would beat all of them. In addition by that point in many naval circles, designers were questioning the place of an armored cruiser and that resulted in pretty much a 20 year absence of armored cruisers from 1905 to the 1920s when the WNT was signed.

So the way I read it is that shipbuilders of the time were ignorant and obsessed with certain ideas and you use hindsight to justify you design... okay...

BTW, did I mention that I got a lot of flak at the very, very beginning of Wesworld when I had twin mount superfiring guns on my startup cruisers? Yes, looks like I did.

Wesworld Asama had a 2x2 and 6x1 in turrets and 4x1 in casemates layout for the 200mm guns and Wesworld Jakumo had 2x2 in turrents and 4x1 in casemates layout for the 200mm guns. Originally I had 4x2 with superfiring turrets for those two classes and they were 10 years more modern than your designs are. But I did not design my Wesworld start up designs with hindsight (hell I did not even know what that was up to that point). I designed mine that way because I liked the looks of that layout.

All these combine to explain why we don't see historical examples of 4x2 20cm ships until the 1920s.

I'm not really convinced about all that. I would be a lot more convinced if I were to see some 4x2 6" or even 4x2 4" light cruisers in the pre 1920 era. If the navies were too busy making their armored cruisers bigger and bigger and turning them into battlecruisers, surely they could have come up with at least one cruiser with a 4x2 layout (or 3x2) with superfiring guns.

Another issue is: The British navy was late to adopt superfiring turrets. The USN never adopted high speed vessels in the era. Are we therefore forced to pick either one of the two design choices? This is the same as the cookie cutter AY problem.

I'm pretty sure you can bend cookie cutters to make it different. This 4x2 design is just breaking the cookie cutter.

Oh, and this isn't Wesworld. There are many undesirable characteristics of Wesworld I would prefer to keep out of Navalism.

Don't worry. I'm pretty sure Red Admiral is not on this board. :)

Can your cruiser fit a Type 0, hit these tiny and quick destroyers, and deal with the torpedoes?

Your cruiser also has 3.6x the waterplane area of this Kaba destroyer, going at 24.5 instead of 28kn and thus will be significantly easier to hit. Did I mention the turn radius will probably be significantly better on the destroyer too?

I will stop here because this is getting too close to becoming "My ship is better than yours :P" now...

[Walter]

The length was not done for seakeeping.... you lose more strength being a longer ship than you do having a higher freeboard for the same seakeeping.

Thinking of it now, I remember something different from messing around in the past so tested it out with your Kaba design. The thing is that you change a couple of other aspects on the design (2 instead of 3 guns, 0.5 knot slower), but if I were to take the Kaba and only make the dimensional and Cb changes, and then raise the freeboard a bit to bump the seakeeping up to the original 1.01 then I get the next hull strength bits...

Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.44 (was 0.50)
- Longitudinal: 1.48 (was 0.70)
- Overall: 0.49 (was 0.51)

... so that tells me the exact opposite from what you are saying. You lose more strength having a higher freeboard than you do being a longer ship for the same seakeeping.

The thing is that raising the freeboard is not a big thing on something like the posted cruisers (as long as the Overall hull strength is 1), but with the DDs and TBs where the cross-sectional hull strength has to be 0.50 it is a big thing. Overall the drop in my test is just 0.02 and can be somewhat compensated but the cross-sectional drop is a massive 0.06 and much harder to correct without more drastic measures (like dropping a gun or losing a knot of speed).

[Logi]

Considering the amount of stuff that is on the Asama between A turret and X turret not sure that the additional 10 meters would be enough... Can you fit those 11 boats on your design?

You're probably right. It's very tight on 135m, so probably 140m or 145m would be a lot more comfortable.

... so are you talking about the Washington Naval Treaty and 1920 or are you talking about the London Naval Treaty and 1930? You got me confused now.

Sorry, that was a typo, I meant the 1920 WNT.

Even so, you could at least have expected them to come up with just one design with a 4x2 9.2" or 4x2 10" design with superfiring turrets in that time frame. But then, you are comparing your ship to big armored cruisers and not with the smaller light cruisers which yours actually is. Having looked at them, they seem pretty consistent when it comes to the main gun caliber (~6") but having looked quickly at numerous light cruisers I have not seen any using a twin mount 6" which should be a lot easier to achieve on a 5-6000 tons ship than twin 8" turrets with barbettes.

The thing is, by the time ships have adopted superfiring starting in ~1904, the battleships they were intended to face had gotten increasing better and larger amount of armor. I'm saying the same point why USN designers forwent triple and quadruple turrets in favor of larger guns. Such as going from 12" to 14" instead of going to triples (Friedman mentions there were 12" triple designs) or from 14" to 16".

So the way I read it is that shipbuilders of the time were ignorant and obsessed with certain ideas and you use hindsight to justify you design... okay...

No, I'm trying to understand why naval shipbuilders did what they did because NO-ONE is ignorant. Everybody does what is the smartest thing to do at their time so there is no talk of "they were stupid". I put out my line of thought simply to share.

What I AM saying is that some but not all of the constraints shipbuilders of the time don't apply on neatly into our world in Navalism. This is because our designs, etc. from all the players are different. So the mission and reaction realities are subtly different. That is also why I don't like this sort of "this style of ship wasn't produced in the period" because it feels very knee-jerk. There's very little reason and context and not insight or constructive at all. Indeed, many of the decisions naval builders historical made are still very valid here, but we can't just blindly copy what they did because it doesn't address the realities of how and why they made those decisions.

We should recognize these differing constraints and try to design within those. It need to make consistent sense within the world as though we were living in it now, without any knowledge or what came later. Then, on this constraints, we design the ships. I think of the tech tree therefore as a reminder. By this point in time, all the historical issues with this idea (such as metallurgy, gunnery accuracy, etc.) have been fixed.

One thing I'll admit to not do often which I should is also consider the non-technical limitations. That is, the institution latency in adopting these newly technically possible possibilities. For example, the USN designed superfiring battleships supposedly in 1902 but was rejected on being too radical. Turbines were rejected because it was viewed as too risky (being a new technology). This is something I am working on, but it requires me to have a clear idea of what the state of institutional thought should be in Japan in this time period. I don't have this in Navalism for Japan yet, so some designs are a few years faster than they likely would have been accepted.

BTW, did I mention that I got a lot of flak at the very, very beginning of Wesworld when I had twin mount superfiring guns on my startup cruisers? Yes, looks like I did.

Yes and I said this isn't Wesworld and that there are some aspects of Wesworld I don't like and wouldn't personally like to bring over to Navalism.

But I did not design my Wesworld start up designs with hindsight (hell I did not even know what that was up to that point). I designed mine that way because I liked the looks of that layout.

What are you trying to say? I also started the design because I liked the idea of a 200mm tincan cruiser. However, there is always a need to reconcile what you like and what means sense In-Character.

Stop projecting. To be honest I have never understood "hindsight" accusations because I have never thought in that fashion. I've said this in Wesworld as well...
To design, I always go through what the design goals are (in context to what the nation, if it were real, would want). These are never influenced by hindsight because the moment I start to design, I shunt out everything like that and focus only one what has been produced in the game. For example, the only ships I have open during a design are the ships of nations which are: considered a threat or are my neighbors. Of those I also limit to only ships that have been produced not in the designing phase. But obviously you simply have my word for it, so you can disregard it as me lying or something.

Either ways, I never accused you of hindsightis. Don't start this shifty deflection game. If you have an issue, bring it up with my front and center, I will take it straight on and I won't hold it against you. I always argue against criticisms of my design, but I attack the argument, not the person. You should also notice, I almost always change the design to fix the faults found by the criticisms as well. I argue to promote discussion because typically discussion on designs elsewhere is bland and superficial. Sometimes it brings new insights and I learn from it, other times it brings insights to other people. It is productive in that fashion.

I'm not really convinced about all that. I would be a lot more convinced if I were to see some 4x2 6" or even 4x2 4" light cruisers in the pre 1920 era. If the navies were too busy making their armored cruisers bigger and bigger and turning them into battlecruisers, surely they could have come up with at least one cruiser with a 4x2 layout (or 3x2) with superfiring guns.

That's certainly true. If there were 4x2 6" and 4x2 4" cruisers in the pre 1920, there would be a great deal of evidence with what I said.

There was the British Warrior class and Minotaur class cruisers from 1903 to 1905 had the same layout as the Dreadnought. The British Topaze class from 1905 also has a similar main battery format. The first British capital ship with superfiring guns is the Lion class battlecruisers in 1910. There are no more cruisers from Britain after 1905. Obviously there is no evidence and counter-evidence.

The Americans had superfiring on all their capital ships after the South Carolina which was laid down in 1906 but was obviously in discussion in much the same format since 1904 at least and maybe since 1902. The Americans built the St Louis cruiser in 1905 (design work started in 1900) and no more protected cruisers until the Pensacola (1928). Armored cruisers stopped with the Tennessee class in 1903 and until the Omaha in 1923. Well the Omaha has a very strange design, I'm not certain why it was designed that way. There were supposed to be designed in response to the British C-class cruisers... but the C-class cruisers had superfiring.

The Germans stopped protected cruiser designs long before the time in question and ended on the last armored cruiser, Blucher in 1907. The first German capital ship with superfiring was the Moltke class battlecruiser in 1908.

The Japanese had their first superfiring gun in the Kongo-class (foreign, so more institutional latency). Japanese stopped their protected/light cruiser design with the Chikuma in 1907 until the Tenryu-Kuma-Nagara-Sendai series from 1915 to 1922 (Tenryu design was finalized before laying down for a few years) and then stopped again until the Agano in 1939. The last Japanese armored/heavy cruiser was the Kasuga in 1902 until the Furutaka in 1922.

Now it is strange the Tenryu-Kuma-Nagara-Sendai series don't have superfiring since the British C-class series of cruisers started in 1913 so Tenryu should obviously have been aware of this. Since Kuma-Nagara-Sendai were all simply modifications of Tenryu, perhaps they can be excused from superfiring for lowering risk by sticking to the same general design. So why does Tenryu not have superfiring? I'm honestly not too sure. Was it top-weight? I doubt it was institutional latency... the Fuso, a domestic design, was done in 1912 with superfiring. Was it the reduced need to fire ahead and rear? All the guns are still center, just none are superfiring. Like I said, I'm not sure what the thought process was.

The French stop building cruisers with the Edgar Quinet-class cruiser in 1905 until the Duguay-Trouin cruisers in 1922. Their first superfiring ship was Courbet class in 1910.

If you had some information about their thought processes, that would be great. I've got nothing. In general though, most nations stopped building cruisers before their first superfiring ship so there is a lack of evidence of cruisers in general, not just superfiring cruisers.

I'm pretty sure you can bend cookie cutters to make it different. This 4x2 design is just breaking the cookie cutter.

What do you mean? Can you give an example of how you would modify the KJ6000 designs (heavily even) in a way that makes mission-oriented sense? I'm not asking sarcastically by the way.
The thing is, with the mission goals defined I find it hard to make designs much more than a simulacrum. After all, when constrained on armament layout and with such inhibition on speed due to the heavy structural strength it drains you basically have only two things to fiddle with:

Armor thickness and coverage
Armament caliber.

As speed is expensive and low, everyone pretty much has to be at roughly the same speed. For example, the 18kn on the IJN battleships currently is a huge risk that I have a really hard time justifying on basis of uniform battleline, because how speeds are quickly going to 20~21kn. I can't go above this speed because of structural cost, but going much under is a very questionable move.

I will stop here because this is getting too close to becoming "My ship is better than yours :P" now...

Yea, sorry. Reading it over again, I think I worded it a little too aggressively.

Thinking of it now, I remember something different from messing around in the past so tested it out with your Kaba design.   [...]   You lose more strength having a higher freeboard than you do being a longer ship for the same seakeeping.

For the 70m yes. The thing is I made a general statement because for larger ships you'll never run into this issue. But like most things, there is a sweet spot range. Since destroyers of 500t is so small, the sweet spot range is much smaller. I think ~74m is the sweet spot for the Kaba (I sacrificed strength to go lower because of the 70m, Type 0 potential). For larger ships though, usually you'll be so much over the sweet spot range that decreasing the length is by default a good choice.

The same thing for draft. Usually increasing draft increases structural strength, but this is actually only true up to a point. For larger ships of ~10,000t, you need 9-10m before you start running into this. For the Kaba, this was ~3.3m

So you see in the Kaba with 70m and 3.58m vs 74m and something like 3.3, a lot of structural strength was sacrificed. My initial point was to counter the claim of me needing a length of 85m (and thus over 12 LB ratio) in order to achieve the 1.01 seakeeping rating. You can get more strength by shrinking the length and increasing the freeboard, BUT (and I left this part out to generalize) only to a certain point.