IJN, Post-1900

[Tanthalas]

not to be overly critical or anything man, but IDK if it fits... I am having a very hard time making my AF-1903 fit on a hull 90' longer with basicly the same layout and weapons load, aditionaly I am not sure that a 12 and a half foot freeboard is enough (mine have 16 foot and it is still awfull low to the water, even if it is an improvment over the 14 foot I had on AF-1900).  Aditionaly if it were my ship I would be concernd about the lack of an upper belt, since you have like 5' of unarmored freeboard the entier length of the ship.

[Logi]

not to be overly critical or anything man, but IDK if it fits... I am having a very hard time making my AF-1903 fit on a hull 90' longer with basically the same layout and weapons load

The ship is about the same as the OTL Brandenburg class with smaller main armament and fewer secondaries so I doubt there will be issues fitting.

But we can work out with math as well:

Gun	Caliber	Barbette Diameter	Barrel Length
Brandenburg 11"	40	~21.5ft	36.7ft
Brandenburg 11"	35	~21.5ft	32.1ft
Asama 25cm	45	~19.8ft	36.9ft
Italian 11"	45	~21.5ft	41.25ft

Asama vs Brandenburg, that's +0.1 ft (0.03m).
Italian vs Brandenburg, that's +18.25ft (5.56m).

I'll count 6" and 4" secondaries the same since firing arcs considerations dominate the difference in sizes between the two calibers. As such:
Brandenburg -> 16 secondaries, 2 raised --- of those only 12, 2 raised are side-facing
Asama -> 12 secondaries, none raised
Italian designs -> 24 secondaries, 8 raised

Each secondary on the Brandenburg design consumes 4 meters by itself. Let's assume each pair requires at least 0.5 meters between themselves. A raised secondary can't be directly about the secondary below it so due to firing arc and pressure considerations so let's say a raised secondary requires +2 m if it is flanked only by 1 secondary below it. If it requires two, then it might as well be counted as a whole secondary (4m).
Since the difference between the Asama and Brandenburg is that the Asama doesn't have a raised secondary, it'll consume ~2.5m more space.

Total length extrapolated from Brandenburg of Asama: 118.23m

The Italian designs have +4 secondaries (raised not withstanding) +1 not-raised secondary, and +2 raised secondaries that is not flanked. In other words, a total of 9m + 2.5m + 8m more length.
tal length extrapolated from Brandenburg of Italian designs: 140.76m

... additionally I am not sure that a 12 and a half foot freeboard is enough (mine have 16 foot and it is still awfully low to the water, even if it is an improvement over the 14 foot I had on AF-1900).

I don't buy the seakeeping concerns at all. At the speed these ships are going at as well as the average sea wave height in their zones of operation, they would barely get wet at all. We aren't operating at very high speed nor are we operating in regions of high wave height like the North Sea.

In any case, if neither Springsharp nor my personal tools doesn't complain about it, I won't much care for it. These nebulous feelings are somewhat arbitrary and can't be enforced in any meaningful way. As long as the design isn't in a fringe section that it doesn't handle seakeeping well (destroyers for example) Springsharp seakeeping values should be all that matter.

That said, this is just my personal opinion.

Additionally if it were my ship I would be concerned about the lack of an upper belt, since you have like 5' of unarmored freeboard the entire length of the ship.

I'm not convinced of the usefulness of a upper belt on a cruiser. Even if you are able to penetrate the upper portion of the ship, you can't make any dents into the main belt / deck, therefore being unable to compromise the water-tightness of the ship.

In exchange for that upper belt, I get a 280mm (11") belt which is proof vs AP 10" guns not to mention 12" and smaller guns with semi-AP rounds.
If I want to keep the 280mm belt, I would have to bump up the displacement to a little above 11,000 tons. If I want the upper belt without increasing displacement, I would reduce main belt to 223mm (8.8"). Not worth it IMO.

[The Rock Doctor]

I share Tan's reservations, and note that this design carries more machinery than the Brandenburgs did.  That said, yes, SS says the design works and you seem satisfied with it, so there we are.

[snip]

A thought on the length comments, I agree with Rock's comments with regards to engine space and that it works in SS so its ok short of making everyone draw there ships. That being said, I think Asama would have a much better volume-to-SHP ratio on her engines then Brandenburg, so that should make up some of the difference. I personally feel that the Asama is going to be a very tight, but workable design. What about double-stacking the casemates to free up some additional length? I don't think we have the experience to indicate how bad that arrangement is so it would still fit while giving indicators of a tightly built design.

[Tanthalas]

Exactly my point... you are packing 21,959 ihp Logi, Brandenburg packed 9,698-10,228 so you esentialy require double the machinery.  All that aditional stuff has to go somewhere, I am just saying on the limited length you have IDK if there is enough space (honestly I am to Lazy to draw someone elses ship just to see if it fits).

@snip that is what I am doing on my next class (Double stacking the secondaries).

We all know SS (both SS2 and SS3) says alot of things that were not done OTL are possible, I have come up with in the past what I thought was a great idea only to realise when I started to draw it that I had serious issues with NEDS (I can generaly make it fit with a little creativity but I know SS has the issue)

I share Tan's reservations, and note that this design carries more machinery than the Brandenburgs did.  That said, yes, SS says the design works and you seem satisfied with it, so there we are.

[Walter]

When in doubt, sim the Brandenburg and compare it with this design (see below)... Still looking at the wiki photo of the Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm, that the 28cm/35 turret seems to be rather limited with the superstructure fore and aft of its position and the same would most likely be true for the Asama.

Brandenburg -> 16 secondaries, 2 raised --- of those only 12, 2 raised are side-facing
Asama -> 12 secondaries, none raised

Looking at wiki, I actually count the secondaries as 8 vs 12 and tertiaries as 8 vs 8 with the Brandenburg having 2 tertiaries in hull casemates. But I don't quite get the linedrawing as in how the remaining 88mm guns are on the ship (as in the side view drawing is pretty poor).



Mixing info from wiki and warshipsww2.eu and gun data from navweaps to make it work. Freeboard height and percentages based on the linedrawing on wiki. Not 100% about the accuracy, but at least it is something to compare the Asama with rather than just discussing about it.

Brandenburg, Germany Battleship laid down 1890

Displacement:
   9,539 t light; 9,894 t standard; 10,634 t normal; 11,225 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (386.65 ft / 379.59 ft) x 65.62 ft x (25.92 / 27.08 ft)
   (117.85 m / 115.70 m) x 20.00 m  x (7.90 / 8.25 m)

Armament:
      4 - 11.14" / 283 mm 40.0 cal guns - 529.11lbs / 240.00kg shells, 60 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1890 Model
     2 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
      2 - 11.14" / 283 mm 35.0 cal guns - 529.11lbs / 240.00kg shells, 60 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mount, 1890 Model
     1 x Twin mount on centreline, aft deck centre
      8 - 4.13" / 105 mm 45.0 cal guns - 40.12lbs / 18.20kg shells, 100 per gun
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1890 Model
     8 x Single mounts on sides, aft deck forward
      8 - 3.46" / 88.0 mm 30.0 cal guns - 15.01lbs / 6.81kg shells, 290 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1890 Model
     6 x Single mounts on side ends, majority forward
      2 raised mounts - superfiring
     2 x Single mounts on sides, forward deck centre
      2 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in heavy seas
      Weight of broadside 3,616 lbs / 1,640 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   15.7" / 400 mm   246.06 ft / 75.00 m   9.06 ft / 2.76 m
   Ends:   11.8" / 300 mm   133.53 ft / 40.70 m   10.50 ft / 3.20 m
     Main Belt covers 100% of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   4.72" / 120 mm   4.72" / 120 mm      11.8" / 300 mm
   2nd:   4.72" / 120 mm   4.72" / 120 mm      11.8" / 300 mm

   - Protected deck - single deck:
   For and Aft decks: 2.36" / 60 mm
   Forecastle: 2.36" / 60 mm  Quarter deck: 2.36" / 60 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 11.81" / 300 mm, Aft 4.72" / 120 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 9,310 ihp / 6,945 Kw = 17.00 kts
   Range 4,300nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,331 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   523 - 680

Cost:
   £0.908 million / $3.633 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 679 tons, 6.4%
      - Guns: 679 tons, 6.4%
   Armour: 3,890 tons, 36.6%
      - Belts: 2,168 tons, 20.4%
      - Armament: 764 tons, 7.2%
      - Armour Deck: 785 tons, 7.4%
      - Conning Towers: 172 tons, 1.6%
   Machinery: 1,724 tons, 16.2%
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,233 tons, 30.4%
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,095 tons, 10.3%
   Miscellaneous weights: 12 tons, 0.1%
      - Hull above water: 12 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     11,397 lbs / 5,170 Kg = 16.5 x 11.1 " / 283 mm shells or 1.9 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.21
   Metacentric height 3.8 ft / 1.2 m
   Roll period: 14.2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.42
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.42

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
     a ram bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.577 / 0.582
   Length to Beam Ratio: 5.79 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 19.48 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 45 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -15.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: -3.28 ft / -1.00 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   17.10%,  22.11 ft / 6.74 m,  21.13 ft / 6.44 m
      - Forward deck:   10.20%,  21.13 ft / 6.44 m,  21.13 ft / 6.44 m
      - Aft deck:   60.10%,  10.56 ft / 3.22 m,  10.56 ft / 3.22 m
      - Quarter deck:   12.60%,  10.56 ft / 3.22 m,  10.56 ft / 3.22 m
      - Average freeboard:      13.52 ft / 4.12 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 80.8%
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 78.5%
   Waterplane Area: 17,820 Square feet or 1,656 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 101%
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 133 lbs/sq ft or 650 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.92
      - Longitudinal: 2.04
      - Overall: 1.00
   Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Cramped accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

[Logi]

What about double-stacking the casemates to free up some additional length? I don't think we have the experience to indicate how bad that arrangement is so it would still fit while giving indicators of a tightly built design.

That's a good idea... but do the tech rules allow that? I'm not too sure.

We all know SS (both SS2 and SS3) says alot of things that were not done OTL are possible, I have come up with in the past what I thought was a great idea only to realize when I started to draw it that I had serious issues with NEDS (I can generaly make it fit with a little creativity but I know SS has the issue)

The thing here is engine room and NEDs are two entirely separate issues. We have to remember that although these are barbettes, they are 9.84" barbettes, meaning they don't reach that deep into the ship.... not to mention the Asama is deeper than the OTL Brandenburg by 1.1m (or roughly 3.5 ft). I'm not convinced they overlap.

In addition, the OTL Brandenburgs had 1890 engines, whereas the Asama have 1900 engines, so there's some efficiency making up the difference in SHP.


I'm not saying it'll be a comfortable fit, but it'll fit. I'm not sure why we need to draw it anyways when I worked out all the math. It's not like I pulled the numbers out of my ass either... they were either empirical formulas which have very high accuracy or directly taken from the proportions in the Brandenburg line drawings.

[Logi]

I did try increasing the weight by 500t (11,000 now) and with some hull modifications, was able to get it to fit a 75mm upper belt, 2m tall. At 10,500t and 11,000t though the Asama are battleships in all but name. Hence I try reworking towards the lighter direction.

Armor is good vs 8"/45 (specifically Russia OTL 8"/45 Pattern 1892) from ~3,660m (4,000) yds out on both deck & belt. In other words, it's good vs everything but the big hitters (10", 11", 12" etc.) If I recall correctly, also good (according to NAab) to British period 9.2" guns, but I'm not sure about that claim.

Belt heights drop from 4m to 3.5m, freeboard height drops by ~0.1m or ~1 ft... Positively, I've moved the casemates to half super-firing.

It's ~28% lighter than the 11,000t variant (which is ~38% heavier)... is it worth it? A bit of a tincan but it is a cruiser...

Asama, Japan Heavy Cruiser laid down 1902 (Engine 1900)

Displacement:
   8,000 t light; 8,491 t standard; 9,067 t normal; 9,528 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (393.70 ft / 393.70 ft) x 57.41 ft x (26.90 / 27.95 ft)
   (120.00 m / 120.00 m) x 17.50 m  x (8.20 / 8.52 m)

Armament:
      6 - 9.84" / 250 mm 45.0 cal guns - 440.92lbs / 200.00kg shells, 100 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1902 Model
     3 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
      12 - 5.98" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.07lbs / 49.02kg shells, 200 per gun
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1902 Model
     12 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      6 raised mounts
      8 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm 40.0 cal guns - 5.42lbs / 2.46kg shells, 400 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1902 Model
     8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      40 - 1.00" / 25.4 mm 35.0 cal guns - 0.46lbs / 0.21kg shells, 800 per gun
     Machine guns in deck mounts, 1902 Model
     10 x Quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
      40 - 0.43" / 11.0 mm 35.0 cal guns - 0.04lbs / 0.02kg shells, 1,000 per gun
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1902 Model
     4 x 2 row decuple mounts on sides, evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 4,006 lbs / 1,817 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   4.92" / 125 mm   351.05 ft / 107.00 m   11.48 ft / 3.50 m
   Ends:   2.95" / 75 mm     42.65 ft / 13.00 m   11.48 ft / 3.50 m
   Upper:   2.95" / 75 mm   351.05 ft / 107.00 m   6.56 ft / 2.00 m
     Main Belt covers 137 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   5.91" / 150 mm   2.95" / 75 mm      3.94" / 100 mm
   2nd:   2.95" / 75 mm   1.97" / 50 mm      1.97" / 50 mm
   3rd:   0.39" / 10 mm         -               -
   4th:   0.20" / 5 mm         -               -

   - Protected deck - single deck:
   For and Aft decks: 1.57" / 40 mm
   Forecastle: 1.57" / 40 mm  Quarter deck: 1.57" / 40 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 5.91" / 150 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 18,318 ihp / 13,665 Kw = 21.00 kts
   Range 4,500nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,036 tons (90% coal)

Complement:
   463 - 603

Cost:
   £1.012 million / $4.047 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 874 tons, 9.6 %
      - Guns: 874 tons, 9.6 %
   Armour: 2,003 tons, 22.1 %
      - Belts: 1,118 tons, 12.3 %
      - Armament: 379 tons, 4.2 %
      - Armour Deck: 451 tons, 5.0 %
      - Conning Tower: 55 tons, 0.6 %
   Machinery: 2,834 tons, 31.3 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,157 tons, 23.8 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,067 tons, 11.8 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 132 tons, 1.5 %
      - Hull above water: 50 tons
      - On freeboard deck: 25 tons
      - Above deck: 57 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     3,905 lbs / 1,771 Kg = 8.2 x 9.8 " / 250 mm shells or 0.8 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
   Metacentric height 2.5 ft / 0.8 m
   Roll period: 15.2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.69
   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): 0.522 / 0.528
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.86 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 19.84 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
   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 %,  11.81 ft / 3.60 m,  11.48 ft / 3.50 m
      - Forward deck:   35.00 %,  11.48 ft / 3.50 m,  11.15 ft / 3.40 m
      - Aft deck:   30.00 %,  11.15 ft / 3.40 m,  11.15 ft / 3.40 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  11.15 ft / 3.40 m,  11.15 ft / 3.40 m
      - Average freeboard:      11.30 ft / 3.45 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 136.0 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 71.1 %
   Waterplane Area: 15,366 Square feet or 1,428 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 82 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 109 lbs/sq ft or 532 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.93
      - Longitudinal: 1.89
      - Overall: 1.00
   Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Cramped accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

[Tanthalas]

I still dont like the freeboard (but then I am the freeboard Nazi), and it is definetly a cruiser instead of a sorta battleship.  What you have to ask yourself is, "is it worth it for me" I considerd several ships like it and decided that they were not worth it for me.

[Logi]

As compared to previous design.. (ship got much deeper, but since it's Pacific operations, it shouldn't be too big an issue)
Disp: 8,000t -> 9,000t

Upper Belt Thk: 75mm -> 100mm
End Belt Thk: 75mm -> 100mm
Main Belt Thk: 125mm -> 220mm
Deck Thk: 40mm -> 50mm

Main Belt Hgt: 3.5m -> 3m
End Belt Hgt: 3.5m -> 3m

Freeboard: 3.4m -> 4.2m
Seakeeping: 1.01 -> 1.21

Asama, Japan Heavy Cruiser laid down 1902 (Engine 1900)

Displacement:
   9,000 t light; 9,446 t standard; 10,063 t normal; 10,557 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (393.70 ft / 393.70 ft) x 57.41 ft x (30.18 / 31.31 ft)
   (120.00 m / 120.00 m) x 17.50 m  x (9.20 / 9.54 m)

Armament:
      6 - 9.84" / 250 mm 45.0 cal guns - 440.92lbs / 200.00kg shells, 80 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1902 Model
     3 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
      12 - 5.98" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.07lbs / 49.02kg shells, 150 per gun
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1902 Model
     12 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      6 raised mounts
      8 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm 40.0 cal guns - 5.42lbs / 2.46kg shells, 400 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1902 Model
     8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      40 - 1.00" / 25.4 mm 35.0 cal guns - 0.46lbs / 0.21kg shells, 800 per gun
     Machine guns in deck mounts, 1902 Model
     10 x Quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
      40 - 0.43" / 11.0 mm 35.0 cal guns - 0.04lbs / 0.02kg shells, 1,000 per gun
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1902 Model
     4 x 2 row decuple mounts on sides, evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 4,006 lbs / 1,817 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   8.66" / 220 mm   328.08 ft / 100.00 m   9.84 ft / 3.00 m
   Ends:   3.94" / 100 mm     65.62 ft / 20.00 m   9.84 ft / 3.00 m
   Upper:   3.94" / 100 mm   328.08 ft / 100.00 m   6.56 ft / 2.00 m
     Main Belt covers 128 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   9.45" / 240 mm   2.95" / 75 mm      3.94" / 100 mm
   2nd:   2.95" / 75 mm   1.97" / 50 mm      1.97" / 50 mm
   3rd:   0.39" / 10 mm         -               -
   4th:   0.20" / 5 mm         -               -

   - Protected deck - single deck:
   For and Aft decks: 1.97" / 50 mm
   Forecastle: 1.97" / 50 mm  Quarter deck: 1.97" / 50 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 8.66" / 220 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 19,559 ihp / 14,591 Kw = 21.00 kts
   Range 4,500nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,111 tons (90% coal)

Complement:
   502 - 653

Cost:
   £1.074 million / $4.294 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 874 tons, 8.7 %
      - Guns: 874 tons, 8.7 %
   Armour: 2,644 tons, 26.3 %
      - Belts: 1,573 tons, 15.6 %
      - Armament: 423 tons, 4.2 %
      - Armour Deck: 561 tons, 5.6 %
      - Conning Tower: 87 tons, 0.9 %
   Machinery: 3,026 tons, 30.1 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,381 tons, 23.7 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,063 tons, 10.6 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0.7 %
      - Hull above water: 25 tons
      - On freeboard deck: 25 tons
      - Above deck: 25 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     5,110 lbs / 2,318 Kg = 10.7 x 9.8 " / 250 mm shells or 0.9 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
   Metacentric height 2.6 ft / 0.8 m
   Roll period: 15.0 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.81
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.21

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.516 / 0.522
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.86 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 19.84 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
   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 %,  13.78 ft / 4.20 m,  13.78 ft / 4.20 m
      - Forward deck:   35.00 %,  13.78 ft / 4.20 m,  13.78 ft / 4.20 m
      - Aft deck:   30.00 %,  13.78 ft / 4.20 m,  13.78 ft / 4.20 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  13.78 ft / 4.20 m,  13.78 ft / 4.20 m
      - Average freeboard:      13.78 ft / 4.20 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 127.9 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 79.9 %
   Waterplane Area: 15,286 Square feet or 1,420 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 84 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 110 lbs/sq ft or 539 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.90
      - Longitudinal: 2.48
      - Overall: 1.00
   Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Cramped accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

[snip]

Thats looking better IMO. Just for curiosity's sake, how fast can you get a version with only 4x250mm? That additional speed might be more useful the the guns.

[Logi]

Roughly 0.7 kts. This is still VTE era so going above 21 kts is extremely expensive. Using 1905 Turbines would probably allow ~23-24 kts.

[Walter]

Using 1905 Turbines would probably allow ~23-24 kts.

Not the way you have simmed it now. According to the techs, the maximum power for non-VTE is 5000 shp per shaft and doing a quick test, you need 6-7 shafts if you want to get a speed of 23-24 knots with turbines. If you want that speed, you need to stick to VTE engines.

[Tanthalas]

Or do like I was thinking about and mix your propulsion, there are some OTL ships that had both VTEs and Turbines (several of them actualy).

Using 1905 Turbines would probably allow ~23-24 kts.

Not the way you have simmed it now. According to the techs, the maximum power for non-VTE is 5000 shp per shaft and doing a quick test, you need 6-7 shafts if you want to get a speed of 23-24 knots with turbines. If you want that speed, you need to stick to VTE engines.

[Walter]

Well, Logi mentioned specifically turbines so that's why I mentioned that...