IJN, Post-1900

[Logi]

And if I sacrifice the Long-Range-Wireless for a Short-Range set, I can get a total of 12x8cm guns. Enough to sink almost 2 destroyers with an abysmal 0.01% accuracy rate.

I don't favor the 6x20cm option. While aesthetically, they would look dashing, the utility of such ships is quite limited. 6 guns means a quite reduced ability to land a shot on target through straddling and the ship still has to be larger than 6000 tons to maintain the 24 knot speed. This 24 knot speed is crucial not only to keep up with the Tsukaba BC, but also to deal with those "big" ACs you mention. None of them have a speed of 24kn. Of all the BC proposals, the Tsukaba at 24 kn is the fastest of them all. The next runner up is the Dutch design at 23 kn. However I really don't like this anti-BC reasoning and so it's only a tangential fact. The fact of the matter is, none of those big BC proposals have actually been built or started building and Japan is likely to be the first to laid down any of the type. It's a bit ridiculous and unrealistic therefore to design a class of ships as a reaction to ships that don't even exist!

Tenryuu, Japanese Cruiser laid down 1904 (Engine 1905)

Displacement:
   7,000 t light; 7,299 t standard; 7,971 t normal; 8,508 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (492.13 ft / 492.13 ft) x 53.48 ft x (20.37 / 21.43 ft)
   (150.00 m / 150.00 m) x 16.30 m  x (6.21 / 6.53 m)

Armament:
      8 - 7.99" / 203 mm 50.0 cal guns - 275.58lbs / 125.00kg shells, 100 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1904 Model
     4 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
      2 raised mounts - superfiring
      12 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 12.99lbs / 5.89kg shells, 200 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1904 Model
     12 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 2,360 lbs / 1,071 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   3.15" / 80 mm   492.13 ft / 150.00 m   9.84 ft / 3.00 m
     Main Belt covers 154 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   5.12" / 130 mm   1.50" / 38 mm      3.15" / 80 mm

   - Armoured deck - single deck:
   For and Aft decks: 1.57" / 40 mm
   Forecastle: 1.18" / 30 mm  Quarter deck: 1.18" / 30 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, reciprocating cruising steam engines and steam turbines
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 25,616 ihp / 19,109 Kw = 24.00 kts
   Range 6,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,209 tons (90% coal)

Complement:
   421 - 548

Cost:
   £0.854 million / $3.415 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 568 tons, 7.1 %
      - Guns: 568 tons, 7.1 %
   Armour: 1,308 tons, 16.4 %
      - Belts: 564 tons, 7.1 %
      - Armament: 243 tons, 3.0 %
      - Armour Deck: 500 tons, 6.3 %
   Machinery: 2,684 tons, 33.7 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,428 tons, 30.5 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 971 tons, 12.2 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 12 tons, 0.2 %
      - On freeboard deck: 12 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     3,851 lbs / 1,747 Kg = 15.1 x 8.0 " / 203 mm shells or 0.8 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
   Metacentric height 2.3 ft / 0.7 m
   Roll period: 14.9 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.71
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.06

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.520 / 0.528
   Length to Beam Ratio: 9.20 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 22.18 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 66
   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 %,  19.03 ft / 5.80 m,  17.39 ft / 5.30 m
      - Forward deck:   10.00 %,  17.39 ft / 5.30 m,  17.39 ft / 5.30 m
      - Aft deck:   55.00 %,  9.84 ft / 3.00 m,  9.84 ft / 3.00 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  9.84 ft / 3.00 m,  9.84 ft / 3.00 m
      - Average freeboard:      12.24 ft / 3.73 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 135.2 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 88.9 %
   Waterplane Area: 17,865 Square feet or 1,660 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 89 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 100 lbs/sq ft or 490 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.99
      - Longitudinal: 1.01
      - Overall: 1.00
   Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Cramped accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

[Walter]

The guns you have lsited are all old types. They were designed in or before 1900 and entered service later. And then, if you looked at the notes, a lot (but not all) are completely manually operated. The 20cm/50 is a new gun with a new turret, it would be absurd to compare it's ROF strictly with others of it's type that are so much older (they're a whole naval gun tech level apart in our sim).

Considering that you have the 1895 artillery tech (*), I would think those old types should be the guideline for your guns, not the newer ones. Even ignoring this, your 20cm/50 guns is listed as 3 rounds per minute, not 3-5 rounds per minute. So in case for your gun, the lower bound that should be used is probably 2 rounds.

The idea that a ship can't keep it's guns trained on a destroyer is pure nonsense. The problem has never been training the guns to track a destroyer, it's always been (re)finding exactly where the guns are supposed to track to to fire and hit the destroyer (you don't point directly at the target) and not losing the relative headings and distances of the two ships when conducting back-to-back maneuvers.

I don't think that tracking would be the issue. An issue might be when a ship focusing its guns on port suddenly has to turn them to starboard to deal with a DD threat there.

Of the guns you guys posted:

US 8"/45 (20.3 cm) Mark 6: 6 degrees per second (30s for 180 degrees)
German 21 cm/40 (8.27") SK L/40 DrL C/01:  5.4 degrees per second (33s for 180 degrees)
German 21 cm/40 (8.27") SK L/40 MPL C/04:  4.5 degrees per second (40s for 180 degrees)
German 21 cm/45 (8.27") SK L/45: 3.5 degrees per second (51s for 180 degrees)
Russian 8"/50 (20.3 cm) Pattern 1905: 3 degrees per second for turret mounts (60s for 180 degrees), 2 degrees per second for open and casemate mounts

At 26 knots, a DD going straight for the ship would in the worst case (the Russian one) come about 800 meters closer. Of course that is looking at it with the ship not moving and in reality it is so I would think it is not that disastrous.

The two cruisers can focus down the destroyers one at a time, not necessarily to sink the destroyer but simply to slow it down.

I would think that as long as the destroyer is not sunk, it can still pose a threat to your cruisers unless your cruisers are 100% guaranteed to be able to move away from it (something that should not be too hard on the open ocean but more challenging in areas that restrict movement). Simply slowing it down isn't good enough. It is better to seriously cripple or incapacitate it or, even better, sink it.

I am also not so sure about your 4 on 2 scenario. Your cruiser is 7,000 t light. You can build 12 500t destroyers with the same amount of cash and BPs. Sure the same issues you mentioned still apply but I think that a 24 on 2 scenario is a more 'fair' comparison than a 4 on 2 scenario. :)


(*) and not the 1900 tech as you indicate in the encyclopedia; according to the reports, only 3 HYs were spent researching the 1900 Arty tech (H1/01, H2/01 and H1/02) meaning that not only do you need to finish researching that tech, but the 20cm/50, 30cm/45 and 36cm/40 that you are researching are currently not legal. Also I notice that your Underway Recoaling tech goes from 3 turns in H1/02 to 5 turns in H2/02 which makes me wonder: Was completion of that tech determined by a correct 20% roll or an incorrect 60% roll?

[snip]

I hope my head was sufficiently crunchy. Was unaware of how new the turret in question was. Can you please direct me to the conversation about train speeds. I think the design you posted in your second post is a major improvement, because as you note torpedo are of limited usefulness. To further that point, I know there is a speed where firing underwater tubes is next to impossible, tho I cannot remember exactly what speed that is.

[Logi]

Even ignoring this, your 20cm/50 guns is listed as 3 rounds per minute, not 3-5 rounds per minute. So in case for your gun, the lower bound that should be used is probably 2 rounds.

The guns are listed as 3 rpm because I list all the naval gun's ROF as the lower bound already. To take the lower bound or a lower bound makes absolutely no sense.

I don't think that tracking would be the issue. An issue might be when a ship focusing its guns on port suddenly has to turn them to starboard to deal with a DD threat there.

Destroyers are not invisible when they have large smoke trails coming out of their funnels. I would have to question how a destroyer squadron managed to sneak in against a cruiser squadron in the great big Pacific which has few densely packed islands (and none of those islands are in contest or reachable by most destroyers) at a distance significantly shorter than 7000m. The problem with your scenario is that it requires the destroyer group to get a jump on the cruiser group in the open ocean of the Pacific - which begs the question, how did the destroyers manage to do that in an era with no airplanes, submarines, or radar to scout, no smoke generators to obscure their approach, and no significant speed advantage to maneuver into position.

At 26 knots, a DD going straight for the ship would in the worst case (the Russian one) come about 800 meters closer. Of course that is looking at it with the ship not moving and in reality it is so I would think it is not that disastrous.

I have no idea what you are saying here. In both my scenario I have detailed that both ships are moving and even used a lenient situation for the DD in which it still fared poorly. I'll have to ask you to expound on that a bit.

Do you mean in the case that the DD appears on the starboard side of the cruiser? In that case the realistic scenario would be for the cruiser to head straight away from the DD, reducing the time for the rear guns to get on target and reducing the speed advantage of the DD by a significant amount. While doing so, the (masked) forward guns would rotate to the proper position and only when they are on the right side of the ship would the cruiser turn to unmask the forward guns (increasing the speed advantage of the DD).

I've detailed why I think the destroyer pincer attack is unfeasible and not at all likely so I will refrain from working it out. I think such a pincer attack would be attempting to put the cruisers in the worst possible situation with no regard towards how unrealistic it would be for the cruisers to find itself in that position - in other words, a contrived scenario.

I would think that as long as the destroyer is not sunk, it can still pose a threat to your cruisers unless your cruisers are 100% guaranteed to be able to move away from it (something that should not be too hard on the open ocean but more challenging in areas that restrict movement). Simply slowing it down isn't good enough. It is better to seriously cripple or incapacitate it or, even better, sink it.

Slowing the destroyers down is good enough because the destroyers have only a small speed advantage against the cruisers. The destroyers guns can't really damage the cruisers either since the cruisers have enough armor on both turret and belt/deck to protect against to 120mm fire and lower. It would be better to sink the destroyers only to deny the enemy future use of them if they manage to repair the destroyers after the action but to accomplish the goal of negating a destroyer attack, slowing is enough. The torpedo range and speed is insufficient, as I have shown, to even have the physical chance (let alone the actual chance of hitting if the cruiser conducts a wild maneuver when the torpedo itself approaches the final stretch) of being reaching near the cruiser unless launched at extraordinary close ranges - how would a destroyer threaten the cruiser if they have been slowed down to say 17 knots outside of the 860m engagement range?

Of course, as I've mentioned previously, the cruisers can afford to maneuver wildly at this ending stretch because no nation in Navalism has the ability to reload it's torpedo tubes in combat and there is a tech level imposed limit on the number of torpedo tubes a destroyer can carry.

I further question what "areas that restrict movement" would make it easy for a destroyer that has a 2 kn advantage over a cruiser close from 7000m to 800m to launch and have even the slightest chance of hitting with a torpedo (not to mention the destroyer would have been spotted long before they had even begun to close to the fire range of 7000m). Why would a Japanese cruiser be in an area densely packed with islands instead of the Japanese destroyer fleet (they exist too you know)?

I am also not so sure about your 4 on 2 scenario. Your cruiser is 7,000 t light. You can build 12 500t destroyers with the same amount of cash and BPs. Sure the same issues you mentioned still apply but I think that a 24 on 2 scenario is a more 'fair' comparison than a 4 on 2 scenario. :)

That is only fair in terms of BP&cash spent, but the reality is 24 destroyers is a significant chunk of the destroyer fleet of all nations.

It would be 44% of the Japanese, 114% of the Chinese, 25% of the British, 45% of the American, 73% of the Dutch, 40% of the German, 32% of the Turkish, 22% of the French, and 200% of the Italian destroyer fleet. That is an absurd amount of the destroyer fleet to use against 2 cruisers - the French are the ones that have close to enough DDs to pull it off. If we are to go to such absurd lengths, the cruisers would be operating with a Tsukaba BB, so the "fair" number of DDs would balloon to 70 destroyers - how would the destroyer fleet even organize themselves in the attack and not accidentally torpedo each other or go in a few at a time and make it easier for the defending fleet?

Even further, if nations in Navalism (and a potential Japanese enemy) had significantly larger destroyer fleets, then these cruisers would naturally be joined by specialized anti-destroyer cruisers, which would result in worst odds for the destroyers.

(*) and not the 1900 tech as you indicate in the encyclopedia; according to the reports, only 3 HYs were spent researching the 1900 Arty tech (H1/01, H2/01 and H1/02) meaning that not only do you need to finish researching that tech, but the 20cm/50, 30cm/45 and 36cm/40 that you are researching are currently not legal. Also I notice that your Underway Recoaling tech goes from 3 turns in H1/02 to 5 turns in H2/02 which makes me wonder: Was completion of that tech determined by a correct 20% roll or an incorrect 60% roll?

??? Did you notice that error just now? If not, you should have told me sooner. I've looked at the reports posted in question as well as the excel files and have concluded I must have misnamed one or two of them the wrong date.

The way I have done them is, I make the current half-year report, then I change everything in the fields for the next year and re-save it as the next half-year report. I must have accidentally done "Save" instead of "Save As". I've also checked the roll for Underway Recoaling tech (we do keep a log of the rolls) and determined it was the result of an incorrect 40% roll.

My directory looks like this and I should probably clean it up:


I'll spend the week correcting the reports  :-[


----------

Note I am not condemning torpedoes forever, when 1913 Torpedo tech comes around, I expect that torpedoes will become quite useful on destroyers and destroyer charges have much higher chances of succeeding. I am just saying based on the math that torpedoes are unlikely to be even marginally effective prior to 1913. I don't think it's very reasonable for a navy to predict the evolving combat world 10 years out when here hasn't been a major naval action in Navalism in the past 10 years. Especially since the jump from 1908 to 1913 torpedo tech is so significant and much greater than the jump between previous techs.

[Logi]

I can get a 6,000t 6x20cm + 6x12cm ship with roughly similar armor/speed/etc. stats as the 7,000t design by dropping 2x20cm guns.

If I put the tonnage to use instead of trying to strictly decrease the weight, I get this:
Increased secondary armament size (75mm -> 120mm) and number (8->14) as well as turned them into fully enclosed deck&hoist mounts.
Lost 200t of light displacement and 2x20cm guns.
Dropped Long-range Wireless for a Short-Range variant.
Deck armor dropped and increased (mid: 40->35, aft&fore: 30->35)

Tenryuu, Japanese Cruiser laid down 1904 (Engine 1905)

Displacement:
   6,800 t light; 7,117 t standard; 7,775 t normal; 8,301 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (479.00 ft / 479.00 ft) x 53.35 ft x (20.11 / 21.16 ft)
   (146.00 m / 146.00 m) x 16.26 m  x (6.13 / 6.45 m)

Armament:
      6 - 7.99" / 203 mm 50.0 cal guns - 275.58lbs / 125.00kg shells, 100 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1904 Model
     3 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
      1 raised mount - superfiring
      14 - 4.72" / 120 mm 45.0 cal guns - 44.97lbs / 20.40kg shells, 200 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1904 Model
     14 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      6 raised mounts
      Weight of broadside 2,283 lbs / 1,036 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   3.15" / 80 mm   479.00 ft / 146.00 m   9.84 ft / 3.00 m
     Main Belt covers 154 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   5.12" / 130 mm   1.50" / 38 mm      3.15" / 80 mm
   2nd:   0.98" / 25 mm   0.59" / 15 mm      0.98" / 25 mm

   - Armoured deck - single deck:
   For and Aft decks: 1.38" / 35 mm
   Forecastle: 1.38" / 35 mm  Quarter deck: 1.38" / 35 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, reciprocating cruising steam engines and steam turbines
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 25,600 ihp / 19,098 Kw = 24.00 kts
   Range 6,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,184 tons (90% coal)

Complement:
   413 - 538

Cost:
   £0.854 million / $3.414 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 606 tons, 7.8 %
      - Guns: 606 tons, 7.8 %
   Armour: 1,240 tons, 16.0 %
      - Belts: 549 tons, 7.1 %
      - Armament: 241 tons, 3.1 %
      - Armour Deck: 450 tons, 5.8 %
   Machinery: 2,682 tons, 34.5 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,262 tons, 29.1 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 975 tons, 12.5 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 10 tons, 0.1 %
      - On freeboard deck: 10 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     3,526 lbs / 1,599 Kg = 13.8 x 8.0 " / 203 mm shells or 0.8 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
   Metacentric height 2.3 ft / 0.7 m
   Roll period: 14.8 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.66
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.02

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.530 / 0.537
   Length to Beam Ratio: 8.98 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 21.89 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
   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 %,  18.04 ft / 5.50 m,  17.06 ft / 5.20 m
      - Forward deck:   10.00 %,  17.06 ft / 5.20 m,  16.40 ft / 5.00 m
      - Aft deck:   55.00 %,  9.84 ft / 3.00 m,  9.84 ft / 3.00 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  9.84 ft / 3.00 m,  9.84 ft / 3.00 m
      - Average freeboard:      12.05 ft / 3.67 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 139.5 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 88.0 %
   Waterplane Area: 17,495 Square feet or 1,625 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 87 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 98 lbs/sq ft or 479 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.99
      - Longitudinal: 1.01
      - Overall: 1.00
   Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Cramped accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

[Walter]

The guns are listed as 3 rpm because I list all the naval gun's ROF as the lower bound already. To take the lower bound or a lower bound makes absolutely no sense.

As far as I am concerned, if a single value is listed for a gun (whether it is here or on Navweaps), it is a gun's maximum ROF.

Destroyers are not invisible when they have large smoke trails coming out of their funnels. I would have to question how a destroyer squadron managed to sneak in against a cruiser squadron in the great big Pacific which has few densely packed islands (and none of those islands are in contest or reachable by most destroyers) at a distance significantly shorter than 7000m. The problem with your scenario is that it requires the destroyer group to get a jump on the cruiser group in the open ocean of the Pacific - which begs the question, how did the destroyers manage to do that in an era with no airplanes, submarines, or radar to scout, no smoke generators to obscure their approach, and no significant speed advantage to maneuver into position.

Which is why I said "might". "Might" as in "unlikely but not impossible." Still I can think of some situations where it may happen like with poor visibility or a captain's incompetence. Also if for example a pair of enemy cruisers were to try and force their way through the gap between Miyakojima and Okinawa and Japan has two groups of destroyers patrolling that area or the cruisers start bombarding a coastal city and a base to the east and a base to the west send out destroyers to counter them. There are probably other scenarios you can think of where a pair of cruisers could find itself in a situation that they are between a pair of destroyer groups. Your remark indicates to me that you consider the destroyer to be a pure offensive weapon which you send out into the vastness of the oceans to find enemy ships and torpedo them. I doubt our current and near future destroyers have the range to do something like that.

But as you said about the destroyers, "they have large smoke trails coming out of their funnels" so unless visibility is poor, a good captain should have more than enough time to determine where he should move his cruiser to make a potential clash between two destroyer groups favorable for him.

I have no idea what you are saying here. In both my scenario I have detailed that both ships are moving and even used a lenient situation for the DD in which it still fared poorly. I'll have to ask you to expound on that a bit.

Do you mean in the case that the DD appears on the starboard side of the cruiser? In that case the realistic scenario would be for the cruiser to head straight away from the DD, reducing the time for the rear guns to get on target and reducing the speed advantage of the DD by a significant amount. While doing so, the (masked) forward guns would rotate to the proper position and only when they are on the right side of the ship would the cruiser turn to unmask the forward guns (increasing the speed advantage of the DD).

I've detailed why I think the destroyer pincer attack is unfeasible and not at all likely so I will refrain from working it out. I think such a pincer attack would be attempting to put the cruisers in the worst possible situation with no regard towards how unrealistic it would be for the cruisers to find itself in that position - in other words, a contrived scenario.

Unlike you, I kept calculations for this as simple as possible by taking the speed from the cruiser out of the equation (so assume that it is dead in the water) and only focus on the destroyers. The Russian turret, being the slowest of those guns mentioned with its turning speed given, turns at 3 degrees per second meaning it takes 60 second to turn the turret 180 degrees from port to starboard (or the other way). A destroyer heading straight for the cruiser at 26 knots will only get 800 meters closer to the cruiser in those 60 seconds.

Since you seem to like the 7000m value a lot, I will use that. How much more dangerous is a destroyer at 6200 meters than a destroyer at 7000 meters?

... and like I said, "that is looking at it with the ship not moving and in reality it is". With the non-moving cruiser and purely focusing on the destroyer, the only thing you need to calculate is ((26*1.852)/60)*1000 = 802.53 meters. I would think that you will agree that it is not that disastrous (probably best read as: "not disastrous at all") for the cruiser, especially if you take into account that in reality the cruiser is moving...

... unless of course the captain is a complete idiot (but that is also a very unlikely scenario).

It would be better to sink the destroyers only to deny the enemy future use of them if they manage to repair the destroyers after the action but to accomplish the goal of negating a destroyer attack, slowing is enough.

Yes, "deny the enemy future use of them" was the main thing I was thinking of. On the other hand, looking at your 203 mm gun, if you manage to hit a destroyer with that one, it should not be that hard to accomplish that.

The torpedo range and speed is insufficient, as I have shown, to even have the physical chance (let alone the actual chance of hitting if the cruiser conducts a wild maneuver when the torpedo itself approaches the final stretch) of being reaching near the cruiser unless launched at extraordinary close ranges - how would a destroyer threaten the cruiser if they have been slowed down to say 17 knots outside of the 860m engagement range?

Well, in the unlikely scenario that the cruiser finds itself in a dead end and has to turn around and move past that destroyer that was damaged earlier... Sure it is unlikely but not impossible.

Just don't forget to shoot the captain for incompetence. :)

I further question what "areas that restrict movement" would make it easy for a destroyer that has a 2 kn advantage over a cruiser close from 7000m to 800m to launch and have even the slightest chance of hitting with a torpedo (not to mention the destroyer would have been spotted long before they had even begun to close to the fire range of 7000m). Why would a Japanese cruiser be in an area densely packed with islands instead of the Japanese destroyer fleet (they exist too you know)?

Close to shore, in a fjord, narrow straits, shallow waters, Japan's inland sea if you want to reverse the cruiser-destroyer situation (i.e. Japanese destroyers vs enemy cruisers)... There is no 100% guarantee that you will always fight your naval battles in areas with unlimited space to move around.

Did you notice that error just now?

Unfortunately yes.

I make the current half-year report, then I change everything in the fields for the next year and re-save it as the next half-year report. I must have accidentally done "Save" instead of "Save As".

Funny. The very first thing I always do is "Save As" to create a new file before starting to change any of the fields. Something I do with the Wesworld reports as well. First "Save As", then edit.

My directory looks like this and I should probably clean it up

Don't worry about that. My directory looks just as messy. ;D

[Logi]

As far as I am concerned, if a single value is listed for a gun (whether it is here or on Navweaps), it is a gun's maximum ROF.

I think that's just a matter of our different backgrounds. I prefer to count by the absolute worst case and use it as reference - it's probably a result of my background in computers (no one gives a doohickey about the best case since it's going to be near instant, they only care about the worst case since that can make an algorithm run for longer than the lifespan of the universe).

What I tend to do for my numbers that I make myself (which is all the guns listed as fictional in my encyclopedia) is to look for highly similar weapons in Navweaps and take the lowest number out of all the ranges. The caveat is that the weapons have to be highly similar, i.e. similar date of designs, shell weight, electric/mechanical systems, same type of mounts (not the RPM of a deck&hoist or turret&barbette used for a deck mount), etc.

Still I can think of some situations where it may happen like with poor visibility or a captain's incompetence. Also if for example a pair of enemy cruisers were to try and force their way through the gap between Miyakojima and Okinawa and Japan has two groups of destroyers patrolling that area or the cruisers start bombarding a coastal city and a base to the east and a base to the west send out destroyers to counter them. There are probably other scenarios you can think of where a pair of cruisers could find itself in a situation that they are between a pair of destroyer groups. Your remark indicates to me that you consider the destroyer to be a pure offensive weapon which you send out into the vastness of the oceans to find enemy ships and torpedo them. I doubt our current and near future destroyers have the range to do something like that.

I see your point. I've taken a look and I feel our disconnect comes from our own designs for destroyers.

Your destroyer designs are significantly faster than the norm (28 knots vs the norm of 25-26 knots) but fragile with short range (2000nm@10kn) and poor seakeeping (0.35).
Whereas the Japanese have a internationally normal speed at 26 knots, is decently tough with average seakeeping (1.01) but with the longest range of all the nations (4000nm@10kn vs the norm of 2000-2800nm).

These characteristics of the Japanese destroyers lends to them being offensive weapons for fleet actions since they are not considered fast enough to work as reactionary forces detached and have enough bunkerage and seakeeping to keep up with the main fleet at sea.

The characteristics of the Chinese destroyers would lend to them being defensive weapons as their short range and poor seakeeping prefers them from venturing out the open sea.

I believe this sort of disconnect between the designs of nations is fine. I also think the flaw, as you see it, in this cruiser is fine from a historical perspective. Many navies in history adopted a position of mirroring in which they assume their potential adversities operate under similar doctrine, designs, and weaponry.

Since you seem to like the 7000m value a lot, I will use that. How much more dangerous is a destroyer at 6200 meters than a destroyer at 7000 meters?

I use the 7000m value for calculations only because that is the range the ships started firing in the OTL Battle of Tsushima. Neither the cruisers nor destroyers will be firing beyond 7000m, it is not particularly useful for the calculation.

I would think that you will agree that it is not that disastrous (probably best read as: "not disastrous at all") for the cruiser, especially if you take into account that in reality the cruiser is moving...

... unless of course the captain is a complete idiot (but that is also a very unlikely scenario).

Oh, yes I agree. I understand you clearly now.

Close to shore, in a fjord, narrow straits, shallow waters, Japan's inland sea if you want to reverse the cruiser-destroyer situation (i.e. Japanese destroyers vs enemy cruisers)... There is no 100% guarantee that you will always fight your naval battles in areas with unlimited space to move around.

I see, I should have clarified that the scenarios constructed are for Japan's thought processes specifically. I don't believe there is a regional navy capable of overpowering the Japanese navy to the point of forcing it into it's own island chains at the present time.

The only other navies with island chains in the region are the British (allied), the Dutch (very few colonial ships), and China (no point in maintaining close blockade since the war will be primarily fought by the army - not the navy, and is impossible anyways because it's way too expensive). Hence the IJN does not consider those situations you mentioned which would make torpedoes significantly more effective.

[Walter]

Your destroyer designs are significantly faster than the norm (28 knots vs the norm of 25-26 knots) but fragile with short range (2000nm@10kn) and poor seakeeping (0.35).

The thing with the Chinese destroyers is that I was using OTL Japanese destroyers as base (1897 Ikazuchi class for the D-1 class and 1900 Akatsuki class for the D-16 class). In order to get close to the OTL speed of those destroyers (and I was looking at the trial speed of the sim to match the OTL speed), the seaboat value needs to be ignored otherwise it is impossible to match or get anywhere near the values of an OTL destroyer, especially when you are dealing with the early ones that were small. The same is true about the Chinese torpedo boats.

In Wesworld, I tried something along the lines of the OTL Shimakaze, but even then I only got to about 37.5 knots which is nowhere near the 39 knots of the OTL design... and the seaboat quality of that sim is 0.72 (and 0.7 is the minimum I stick to there)

SS isn't made to sim destroyers, especially those small ones. Even though the seaboat quality of those Chinese destroyers and torpedo boats are far below what you might do, since they are based on historical vessels, they won't be much worse than those historical ships. Perhaps the historical ships were also bad seaboats and perhaps they were defensive to begin with.

I don't believe there is a regional navy capable of overpowering the Japanese navy to the point of forcing it into it's own island chains at the present time.

There is no need for the Japanese Navy to be overpowered and being forced into it's own island chains to be there.
Make enemy captains quote Admiral Ackbar: "It's A Trap!" :)

[Logi]

I revisited the BC & BB designs

The Awa BB redesign sacrifices a bit of barbette armor in exchange for 3kn and thicker deck armor which I think is quite acceptable.
The Tsukaba BC redesign increases the tonnage by 4,000 tons (21 kt -> 25 kt) and requires a bigger dock (170m -> 210m) but has better belt (280mm -> 305mm) and deck (50-65mm -> 75mm) armor as well as a heavier main battery (8x305mm -> 12x305mm).

Current plans is only 1 BC built if that at all.

Awa, Japanese Battleship laid down 1904 (Engine 1905)

Displacement:
   16,000 t light; 16,778 t standard; 17,347 t normal; 17,803 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (492.13 ft / 492.13 ft) x 77.10 ft x (29.86 / 30.47 ft)
   (150.00 m / 150.00 m) x 23.50 m  x (9.10 / 9.29 m)

Armament:
      8 - 12.01" / 305 mm 40.0 cal guns - 850.98lbs / 386.00kg shells, 90 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1898 Model
     4 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
      2 raised mounts - superfiring
      10 - 5.98" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.07lbs / 49.02kg shells, 150 per gun
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1904 Model
     10 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 7,889 lbs / 3,578 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   12.0" / 305 mm   492.13 ft / 150.00 m   13.12 ft / 4.00 m
   Upper:   5.12" / 130 mm   265.75 ft / 81.00 m   9.84 ft / 3.00 m
     Main Belt covers 154 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   12.0" / 305 mm   4.13" / 105 mm      8.07" / 205 mm
   2nd:   2.56" / 65 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - multiple decks:
   For and Aft decks: 2.95" / 75 mm
   Forecastle: 2.95" / 75 mm  Quarter deck: 2.95" / 75 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 12.01" / 305 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, reciprocating cruising steam engines and steam turbines
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 25,600 ihp / 19,098 Kw = 21.00 kts
   Range 3,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,025 tons (90% coal)

Complement:
   755 - 982

Cost:
   £1.537 million / $6.149 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,233 tons, 7.1 %
      - Guns: 1,233 tons, 7.1 %
   Armour: 6,268 tons, 36.1 %
      - Belts: 3,476 tons, 20.0 %
      - Armament: 1,180 tons, 6.8 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,439 tons, 8.3 %
      - Conning Tower: 173 tons, 1.0 %
   Machinery: 2,682 tons, 15.5 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,517 tons, 31.8 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,347 tons, 7.8 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 1.7 %
      - Above deck: 300 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     19,135 lbs / 8,680 Kg = 22.1 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 2.4 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
   Metacentric height 4.0 ft / 1.2 m
   Roll period: 16.3 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.89
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.51

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.536 / 0.539
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.38 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 22.18 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 47
   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 %,  18.37 ft / 5.60 m,  17.39 ft / 5.30 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  17.39 ft / 5.30 m,  17.39 ft / 5.30 m
      - Aft deck:   35.00 %,  17.39 ft / 5.30 m,  17.39 ft / 5.30 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  17.39 ft / 5.30 m,  17.39 ft / 5.30 m
      - Average freeboard:      17.47 ft / 5.32 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 82.2 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 114.6 %
   Waterplane Area: 26,134 Square feet or 2,428 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 98 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 152 lbs/sq ft or 744 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.91
      - Longitudinal: 2.22
      - Overall: 1.00
   Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Adequate accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Tsukaba, Japanese Battleship laid down 1904 (Engine 1905)

Displacement:
   25,000 t light; 26,194 t standard; 26,997 t normal; 27,639 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (688.98 ft / 688.98 ft) x 83.99 ft x (29.53 / 30.08 ft)
   (210.00 m / 210.00 m) x 25.60 m  x (9.00 / 9.17 m)

Armament:
      12 - 12.01" / 305 mm 40.0 cal guns - 850.98lbs / 386.00kg shells, 90 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1898 Model
     6 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
      2 raised mounts
      16 - 5.98" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.07lbs / 49.02kg shells, 150 per gun
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1904 Model
     16 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      6 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in heavy seas
      Weight of broadside 11,941 lbs / 5,416 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   12.0" / 305 mm   688.98 ft / 210.00 m   13.12 ft / 4.00 m
     Main Belt covers 154 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   13.0" / 330 mm   4.13" / 105 mm      8.27" / 210 mm
   2nd:   5.12" / 130 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - multiple decks:
   For and Aft decks: 2.95" / 75 mm
   Forecastle: 2.95" / 75 mm  Quarter deck: 2.95" / 75 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 12.99" / 330 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 42,780 ihp / 31,914 Kw = 23.00 kts
   Range 3,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,445 tons (90% coal)

Complement:
   1,052 - 1,368

Cost:
   £2.642 million / $10.569 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,867 tons, 6.9 %
      - Guns: 1,867 tons, 6.9 %
   Armour: 8,259 tons, 30.6 %
      - Belts: 4,017 tons, 14.9 %
      - Armament: 1,760 tons, 6.5 %
      - Armour Deck: 2,230 tons, 8.3 %
      - Conning Tower: 252 tons, 0.9 %
   Machinery: 6,139 tons, 22.7 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,434 tons, 31.2 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,997 tons, 7.4 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 1.1 %
      - Above deck: 300 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     21,913 lbs / 9,939 Kg = 25.3 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 2.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
   Metacentric height 4.5 ft / 1.4 m
   Roll period: 16.5 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.78
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.20

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.553 / 0.556
   Length to Beam Ratio: 8.20 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 26.25 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 40 %
   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 %,  18.04 ft / 5.50 m,  16.73 ft / 5.10 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  16.73 ft / 5.10 m,  16.40 ft / 5.00 m
      - Aft deck:   35.00 %,  16.40 ft / 5.00 m,  16.40 ft / 5.00 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  16.40 ft / 5.00 m,  16.40 ft / 5.00 m
      - Average freeboard:      16.62 ft / 5.07 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 104.5 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 120.8 %
   Waterplane Area: 40,498 Square feet or 3,762 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 92 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 159 lbs/sq ft or 776 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.99
      - Longitudinal: 1.04
      - Overall: 1.00
   Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Excellent accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

[Tanthalas]

the "BB" isn't too bad IMHO, I might do a few things different (such as I wouldn't be laying down anything till I had a L45 or better main gun)  but over all a really reasonable ship.

the "BC" is just too big for the period IMHO... by the time you finish it odds are other people will be laying down (or potentialy already have in service) 25 knot BC/BB with 12 inch L50 main guns (or possibly 13.5-14 inch L45)  making the attempts to future proof it by going so large more or less moot.

Basically IMHO all your proposals are handicapped by the 12 inch L40 main gun.  I understand your position, but I still personally view it as a serious handicap for any potential all big gun ship.

[Logi]

I don't believe the 305mm/40 is as bad as you think.

According to NavWeaps, the American 12"/40 Mk3 and 12"/45 Mk5 differ in belt penetration by 2" (51mm) at 5,490m (6kyd), 0.6" (15mm) at 8,230m (9kyd), and 0.5" (12mm) at 10,920m (12kyd). The difference in range at maximum elevation is roughly 1km (17,370m@15.5 vs 18,290m@15).

The longer gun is no doubt better, but not by such a significant margin as to be a "serious handicap", especially since the penetration value at 5,490m of the 12"/40 is 14.6", already more than any ship has mounted. Rather the ammunition used, AP, APC, etc. would have a much larger hand in whether or not the gun is obsolete.

I did see that the British 12"/40 Mark IX performed drastically worst, but I suspect it is because those guns used uncapped AP shells. It is in line with what NAaB reports to be the penetration of uncapped AP 12" shells.


I also checked my calculations against NAaB.
Belt: 12" German original Krupp Cemented (1894-1918%) ('KC a/A' (KC 'Old Type'))
Deck: 3" German Schiffbaustahl I (1901-1931) as deck.

Projectile: 12" Avg soft capped Steel AP Shell/Common (4-6% Shimose filler) (1915-45)
Ballistic Coefficient: 7.1 (halfway between uncapped 1895 at 6.080 and soft-capped 1915 at 8.340 because we are at 1904 but have soft-capped AP tech)
Muzzle Velocity: 2550 fps (12"/40 guns report 2620-2550 fps, so I took the lower end)
Total Weight: 851lb
Body Weight: 800lb

Full perforation: 14.4" @ 6,000 yds, 11.4" @ 9,150 yds, 9" @ 12,500 yds

As 12"/45 in the same modeling but with increased fps to 2730 (upper end as mv ranges from 2730-2630 fps) yields:
Full perforation: 15" @ 6,000 yds, 11.9" @ 9,130 yds, 9.3" @ 12,490 yds

The difference between the two guns given the same ammunition is not large enough to significantly handicap such a ship. Of course, given the option, you would always pick to use the 12"/45 over the 12"/40 but it is not crucial.

To be through, I also did calculations on a 12"/50 gun using the same ammunition as well.
Muzzle Velocity: 2850 fps
Full perforation: 15.4" @ 6,000 yds, 12.3" @ 9,160 yds, 9.7" @ 12,470 yds.

13.5" etc guns are another class and I won't calculate for them. By the same argument you could argue you should never laid down a ship until you reach 16"/40 guns because each step in caliber yields such enormous penetration increases. You could indefinitely delay capital ship construction using that logic.

[Tanthalas]

It could be argued, but I am not, nor would I ever argue for that line of thought even though I delayed laying down anything until I had the all big gun tech after developing the 11L45 in 1902...(that was a personal choice and had more to do with speeds attainable than with anything else).  I think (personal opinion here again) that the 16K one is fine (as I have stated I dont like the guns, but I understand and even in some ways agree with your arguments) the 25K one however given the 6 turn build time (unless you plan to reduce it by the 1/3 allowed under the rules) is simply too big and will be too dated by the time it finishes.

Personally I think you would be better off building 3 of the slow one, but I know how huge my internal arguments were over what to lay down.  I also know that in the end I decided to build one "minimum" BC (although mine is 8.5K lighter than your proposal, and I still wasn't personally sure it was worth it  :P ).

All that said Japan is yours to run as you see fit, don't let any of us (especially me) deter you from building whatever you want.  Just consider me a good nature'd Skeptic, our two theories are opposite and that's fine hell it's the point of the Nverse.

[Logi]

I'm of the opinion that I shouldn't lay down the BC version either. Considering how armored my BC version is, I'm considering an actual BC version to save on weight.

[Logi]

I tried dropping 1 kn from the BC's top speed.

Tsukaba, Japanese Battlecruiser laid down 1904 (Engine 1905)

Displacement:
   18,500 t light; 19,368 t standard; 20,004 t normal; 20,513 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (557.74 ft / 557.74 ft) x 81.04 ft x (28.54 / 29.11 ft)
   (170.00 m / 170.00 m) x 24.70 m  x (8.70 / 8.87 m)

Armament:
      10 - 12.01" / 305 mm 40.0 cal guns - 850.98lbs / 386.00kg shells, 80 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1904 Model
     4 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
      2 raised mounts - superfiring
     1 x Twin mount on centreline, aft deck forward
      10 - 5.98" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.07lbs / 49.02kg shells, 150 per gun
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1902 Model
     10 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      4 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in all but light seas
      Weight of broadside 9,591 lbs / 4,350 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   11.0" / 280 mm   557.74 ft / 170.00 m   9.84 ft / 3.00 m
   Upper:   6.10" / 155 mm   426.51 ft / 130.00 m   4.92 ft / 1.50 m
     Main Belt covers 154 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   12.0" / 305 mm   3.15" / 80 mm      6.10" / 155 mm
   2nd:   6.10" / 155 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - multiple decks:
   For and Aft decks: 1.97" / 50 mm
   Forecastle: 1.97" / 50 mm  Quarter deck: 1.97" / 50 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 12.01" / 305 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 38,027 ihp / 28,368 Kw = 23.00 kts
   Range 3,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,145 tons (90% coal)

Complement:
   840 - 1,093

Cost:
   £2.151 million / $8.604 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,472 tons, 7.4 %
      - Guns: 1,472 tons, 7.4 %
   Armour: 5,131 tons, 25.7 %
      - Belts: 2,771 tons, 13.9 %
      - Armament: 1,020 tons, 5.1 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,150 tons, 5.7 %
      - Conning Tower: 191 tons, 1.0 %
   Machinery: 5,457 tons, 27.3 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,140 tons, 30.7 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,504 tons, 7.5 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 1.5 %
      - On freeboard deck: 300 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     11,127 lbs / 5,047 Kg = 12.9 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 1.6 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
   Metacentric height 4.3 ft / 1.3 m
   Roll period: 16.5 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.66
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.02

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.543 / 0.546
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.88 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 23.62 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 68
   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 %,  13.12 ft / 4.00 m,  13.12 ft / 4.00 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  13.12 ft / 4.00 m,  13.12 ft / 4.00 m
      - Aft deck:   35.00 %,  13.12 ft / 4.00 m,  13.12 ft / 4.00 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  13.12 ft / 4.00 m,  13.12 ft / 4.00 m
      - Average freeboard:      13.12 ft / 4.00 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 121.6 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 93.2 %
   Waterplane Area: 31,328 Square feet or 2,910 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 86 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 155 lbs/sq ft or 755 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.97
      - Longitudinal: 1.23
      - Overall: 1.00
   Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Adequate accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

[Logi]

A true BC version with 180mm (7") belt armor and 3x2 305mm (12") guns. Total tonnage is significantly down and the armor (belt+deck) will hold against up to 8" fire from 5,100m to 14,000m. For 9.2" fire, the immunity zone will be roughly 8,500m to 13,000m. While I prefer the 18,500t version as it is well-armored, this iteration is a lot smaller and thus buildable.

Adding another 1,500 tons (14,000t total) allows the ship to go to 24kn. Alternatively, adding 2,000 tons (14,500 total) allows the ship to mount an additional 305mm (12") turret (+2 guns) without increasing speed.

Tsukaba, Japanese Battlecruiser laid down 1904 (Engine 1905)

Displacement:
   12,500 t light; 13,126 t standard; 13,614 t normal; 14,005 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (475.72 ft / 475.72 ft) x 67.91 ft x (27.89 / 28.51 ft)
   (145.00 m / 145.00 m) x 20.70 m  x (8.50 / 8.69 m)

Armament:
      6 - 12.01" / 305 mm 40.0 cal guns - 850.98lbs / 386.00kg shells, 80 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1904 Model
     3 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
      1 raised mount - superfiring
      14 - 5.98" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.07lbs / 49.02kg shells, 150 per gun
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1902 Model
     14 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      6 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in all but light seas
      Weight of broadside 6,619 lbs / 3,002 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   7.09" / 180 mm   475.72 ft / 145.00 m   9.84 ft / 3.00 m
     Main Belt covers 154 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   7.09" / 180 mm   2.56" / 65 mm      7.09" / 180 mm
   2nd:   3.94" / 100 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - multiple decks:
   For and Aft decks: 1.57" / 40 mm
   Forecastle: 1.57" / 40 mm  Quarter deck: 1.57" / 40 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 7.09" / 180 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 31,414 ihp / 23,435 Kw = 23.00 kts
   Range 3,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 879 tons (90% coal)

Complement:
   629 - 819

Cost:
   £1.553 million / $6.212 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,012 tons, 7.4 %
      - Guns: 1,012 tons, 7.4 %
   Armour: 2,610 tons, 19.2 %
      - Belts: 1,228 tons, 9.0 %
      - Armament: 646 tons, 4.7 %
      - Armour Deck: 649 tons, 4.8 %
      - Conning Tower: 87 tons, 0.6 %
   Machinery: 4,508 tons, 33.1 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,070 tons, 29.9 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,114 tons, 8.2 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 2.2 %
      - On freeboard deck: 300 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     5,850 lbs / 2,653 Kg = 6.8 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 1.0 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
   Metacentric height 3.3 ft / 1.0 m
   Roll period: 15.7 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.80
   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): 0.529 / 0.532
   Length to Beam Ratio: 7.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 21.81 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 %,  13.12 ft / 4.00 m,  13.12 ft / 4.00 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  13.12 ft / 4.00 m,  13.12 ft / 4.00 m
      - Aft deck:   35.00 %,  13.12 ft / 4.00 m,  13.12 ft / 4.00 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  13.12 ft / 4.00 m,  13.12 ft / 4.00 m
      - Average freeboard:      13.12 ft / 4.00 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 139.4 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 87.9 %
   Waterplane Area: 22,106 Square feet or 2,054 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 82 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 136 lbs/sq ft or 664 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.94
      - Longitudinal: 1.65
      - Overall: 1.00
   Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Cramped accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform