Dutch Ships 1900 on

[Walter]

Unfortunately I do not have that kind of luxurious books. Still, the Yubari image on wiki that gives the length (wl) of 459 feet and the beam of 39 feet and 6 inches is from the Division of Naval Intelligence so I would assume that that would be a decently reliable source. :)

[Logi]

Logi are you referring to the BC or the Length to beam ratio, not trying to be argumentative just not sure which you are referring to, I inserted the rules for clarity.

Both

so going by that 11-1 and a .487 would seam reasonable to me for a not small but also not large ship, that is for the period fast (admittedly what constitutes fast varies by era).  she is based on Yūbari  which comes in at 11.32-1 the Arethusa class is the same 11.18-1 I ended up at, like 3/4 of the British period CLs come in at 10.88-1.  BCs on the other hand are all over the damn place from a high of .505 to a low of .472.

I do not believe attempting to imitate the severely structurally understrength Yuubari which used fragile Destroyer-engines (to save weight) would be something you want to do.

The Arethusa class is actually less than 10.88 LB ratio because we (and SS) counts LB by the Lpp.

According to Norm Friedman in "British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After":

The Town class cruisers (1910) which preceded the Arethusa (1913) class were:
LBP 430', LOA 457', Beam 49'
Machinery 1075t with Normal disp 5,400t
which makes for a 8.8 LB ratio (9.3 LB with Loa) and 20% machinery weight

Leander class (1932) had
LBP 530', LOA 562', Beam 56' 8"
Machinery 1,393t with Standard disp 7,197t
which makes for 9.3 LB ratio (9.9 with Loa) and 19% machinery weight

Arethusa (1934)
LBP 480', LOA 506', Beam 51'
Machinery 1,221t with Standard disp 5,419t
which makes for 9.4 LB ratio (9.9 with Loa but no one counts that way) and 22% machinery weight

Unfortunately I do not have access to all the pages of the book, so I can't tell you the details on the Arethusa (1913). However, Friedman does mention the design sketches that they were all on the order of 410ft x 42ft and never mentions any other design sketches changing the basic hull specifications, so going by that, the Arethusa class (1913) would have somewhere around a 9.8 LB ratio

Even ignoring the LB ratio, going just by the numbers on the English wiki - 125m Lpp, 11.9m Beam, 4.75m Draft, and 3,568t Displacement - the Cb would be around 0.505

Friedman also mentions that the stability of the Arethusa class (1913) was not very satisfactory and very lively. Since Friedman mentions the extensive structural armor (armor also serving as structural strength) in the ship, I would postulate that such armor would have increased the metacentric height for the ship which makes it more structurally sound and stable that both mine and your 3,000t-3,500t cruiser designs. The removal of such armor and weight towards the bottom of the ship, therefore, would lead to an even more unstable and lively ship as well as make it structurally fragile.

Though my design suffers from these issues as well, your 3,500t design would no doubt suffer those symptoms much worse. Despite being roughly the same displacement as the Arethusa (1913) cruisers, your ship is much longer (447' vs 410' Lpp), thinner (40' vs 42' Beam), and deeper (17.6' vs 15.6' Draft at deep load). You also consume much more ship weight and strength in machinery without having nearly as much structural strength. If one were to simply scale up the dimensions of the Arethusa (1913) cruisers to your design via Beam, the ship would only be (430.5' x 42' x 16.4'). Your design would still be longer by 4% (+16.5') and deeper by 7% (+1.2')

You can feel free to build it, but my 3,000t DDL design was already on the brink of being considered fragile like a destroyer (which is one of the reasons I am against building it). Your 3,500t design would most definitely be considered little more structurally sound than a destroyer.

[Walter]

The Arethusa class is actually less than 10.88 LB ratio because we (and SS) counts LB by the Lpp.

I am 99.9% sure that SS uses length (wl) and not length (pp) and as far as I know, for the l:b ratio here (and Wesworld as well) has always been length (wl).

[Logi]

Typically naval literature mentions Lpp so I've built a habit of using that term. For our purposes however, you can just substitute it with Lwl since in SS it's roughly the same. For that matter, the LBP that Friedman mentions is actually the exact same phrase as Lpp.

[Walter]

In SS the length you enter is the length (wl) and length (wl) =/= length (pp) so length (wl) can't be substituted by length (pp) and vice versa. That's like saying "We'll substitute the patients heart with a kidney."

[Logi]

Lwl means Length waterline.
Lpp means length between perpendiculars.

They are both calculated on the basis of the lengthwise extremes of the waterplane. The difference in measurement differs only slightly on ships due to the difference in how far the stern extends over the rudder. In fact the difference even with different sterns typically is within 99% of each other. This is because the root of the rudder post will be extremely close to the waterline to begin with and unless the stern extends almost parallel to the water's surface, there will not be very much distance between the stern touching the water and the rudder post. For our purpose which is that of calculating LB ratios, the difference of 1% will not yield a significant change in the ratio. It will not, for example, make a ratio of 10 to a ratio of 11. Therefore my statement stands.

The typical length waterline is 98% of length overall, as determined empirically by others and is still used today. The difference in Lpp and Lwl is even smaller and so small in practice that, for simple discussion of engineering issues, most literature treat them as the same. Of course, you would treat it differently in the actual construction of the vessel to avoid issues in fit. However, they are treated the same otherwise because they are so similar and painting in broad strokes during the design phase is significantly more important than being pointlessly pedantic.

Edit: I should note that they treat it as the same because everyone knows they are not the exact same but quite similar. In mathematical terms, Lpp ≈ Lwl but Lpp ≠ Lwl and for most things ≈ is enough to talk about.

[Tanthalas]

I have all of the Conways, and some of the Friedmans books, unfortunately that isn't one I have, although I do have both US Destroyers and US Battleships (and us carriers but that is sort of useless for us as is the Submarine book).   

WL and PP are sometimes the same in period works and sometimes not... it is kinda random like BCs.  and Logi I didn't even go into the most extreme bcs for Cruisers (in either direction) these are just some of the highlights (or is that lowlights seriously some of these are lower than even I would ever try to go) of "period" cruisers.  As I have said before BCs are all over the place (but the Germans have the lowest ones of any I looked at). 

Blonde class scout Cruisers .443 (roughly the size of your 2600 ton job but I have never been able to make it work in SS)
Active class scout Cruisers .461 (similar size and another one i have never managed to make work)
Caledon Class Cruisers .472 (a ship I can get close to working but not quite no matter how much I mess with it)
Emrald Class Cruiser .445 (I had to check that 3 times cause even I was like WTF

German ships tend to have lower BCs than their brit counterparts (no clue why honestly)
Konigsberg class cruisers (1905) come in at a Scary (to me anyway) .412
Dresden Class Light Cruiser .471
Kolberg class Light Cruisers .445
Magdeburg class light Cruiser .486 (Circa 1910 yeah it took Germany that long to get to a .486)

I tried to stick only to ships where I had a WL and OA, thus eliminating things like clipper/ram bows from the discussion

*added when I went to post and saw your post Logi*
Personally I use LPP and LWL as more or less the same. although in the past I have stumbled across a few (very very few like as in only one I can remember and it was on la great lakes freighter) where it was a 4' difference (although that was on much larger ship than what we are dealing with, I figure *shrug* close enough for my purposes).

[Logi]

Like I said,m you can feel free to build it - I just would not feel very comfortable with it. Ofc I try to design my ships to be more robust than necessary, so perhaps your design is fine anyways.

[Tanthalas]

Just to be viewed as an experiment, ditched the hoists and played around with several other stats to add the "half belt" simulating the curved portion of the protected deck.  It works, and period ships apparently didn't mount hoists for every gun (looks like pairs and sometimes 3 guns shared a hoist, but I am unsure how to accurately simulate that outside using 2 batteries which I may play around with later).  As always opinions are welcome (especially since this was done as an experiment).

CLX-1904-3, Unified Netherlands Protected Cruiser laid down 1904 (Engine 1905)

Displacement:
   3,500 t light; 3,638 t standard; 4,009 t normal; 4,306 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (450.00 ft / 450.00 ft) x 44.00 ft x (14.16 / 14.95 ft)
   (137.16 m / 137.16 m) x 13.41 m  x (4.32 / 4.56 m)

Armament:
      7 - 6.00" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 100.00lbs / 45.36kg shells, 150 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1904 Model
     7 x Single mounts on centreline ends, majority aft
      2 raised mounts - superfiring
      Weight of broadside 700 lbs / 318 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   2.00" / 51 mm   415.00 ft / 126.49 m   4.00 ft / 1.22 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 142 % of normal length

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

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

   - Conning towers: Forward 4.00" / 102 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 19,950 shp / 14,883 Kw = 25.00 kts
   Range 4,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 667 tons (90% coal)

Complement:
   251 - 327

Cost:
   £0.388 million / $1.553 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 130 tons, 3.2 %
      - Guns: 130 tons, 3.2 %
   Armour: 416 tons, 10.4 %
      - Belts: 128 tons, 3.2 %
      - Armament: 20 tons, 0.5 %
      - Armour Deck: 246 tons, 6.1 %
      - Conning Tower: 22 tons, 0.5 %
   Machinery: 1,641 tons, 40.9 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,288 tons, 32.1 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 509 tons, 12.7 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 25 tons, 0.6 %
      - On freeboard deck: 25 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     2,700 lbs / 1,224 Kg = 25.0 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 0.6 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.40
   Metacentric height 2.6 ft / 0.8 m
   Roll period: 11.4 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 79 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.22
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.48

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.500 / 0.509
   Length to Beam Ratio: 10.23 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 21.21 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 53
   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:   15.00 %,  20.00 ft / 6.10 m,  20.00 ft / 6.10 m
      - Forward deck:   15.00 %,  20.00 ft / 6.10 m,  20.00 ft / 6.10 m
      - Aft deck:   55.00 %,  12.00 ft / 3.66 m,  12.00 ft / 3.66 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  12.00 ft / 3.66 m,  12.00 ft / 3.66 m
      - Average freeboard:      14.40 ft / 4.39 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 141.6 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 137.4 %
   Waterplane Area: 13,198 Square feet or 1,226 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 98 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 66 lbs/sq ft or 321 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.98
      - Longitudinal: 1.17
      - Overall: 1.00
   Cramped 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]

Another Experiment in keeping with our Cruiser rules thread.  More or less a Copy of a German CL (Konigsberg class 1905) with some liberties taken to improve gun layout (the fore and aft pair are SF instead of being side by side).  However it worked more or less (I had to add tonnage to get them up to a 1.00 as they came in at a .91 so would work with our .9 proposal).  Lots of stuff would be outside the armour based on this sim (but that appears to be a period thing)

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

Displacement:
   3,000 t light; 3,105 t standard; 3,581 t normal; 3,962 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (383.16 ft / 383.16 ft) x 43.66 ft x (17.42 / 18.69 ft)
   (116.79 m / 116.79 m) x 13.31 m  x (5.31 / 5.70 m)

Armament:
      6 - 4.00" / 102 mm 45.0 cal guns - 40.00lbs / 18.14kg shells, 150 per gun
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1905 Model
     4 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
      2 raised mounts - superfiring
     2 x Single mounts on sides, aft deck centre
      4 - 4.00" / 102 mm 45.0 cal guns - 40.00lbs / 18.14kg shells, 150 per gun
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1905 Model
     2 x Single mounts on sides, aft deck aft
      2 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in all but light seas
     2 x Single mounts on sides, forward deck aft
      2 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in all but light seas
      Weight of broadside 400 lbs / 181 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   3.00" / 76 mm   265.91 ft / 81.05 m   3.00 ft / 0.91 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 107 % of normal length
     Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   2.00" / 51 mm         -               -
   2nd:   2.00" / 51 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - multiple decks:
   For and Aft decks: 1.75" / 44 mm
   Forecastle: 0.75" / 19 mm  Quarter deck: 0.75" / 19 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 4.00" / 102 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 16,573 shp / 12,363 Kw = 24.00 kts
   Range 5,500nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 857 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   230 - 300

Cost:
   £0.314 million / $1.256 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 51 tons, 1.4 %
      - Guns: 51 tons, 1.4 %
   Armour: 472 tons, 13.2 %
      - Belts: 98 tons, 2.7 %
      - Armament: 41 tons, 1.1 %
      - Armour Deck: 313 tons, 8.7 %
      - Conning Tower: 20 tons, 0.6 %
   Machinery: 1,381 tons, 38.6 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,079 tons, 30.1 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 581 tons, 16.2 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 18 tons, 0.5 %
      - On freeboard deck: 18 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     2,733 lbs / 1,240 Kg = 85.4 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 0.7 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.52
   Metacentric height 3.0 ft / 0.9 m
   Roll period: 10.7 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 77 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.10
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.55

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak, raised quarterdeck ,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.430 / 0.444
   Length to Beam Ratio: 8.78 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 19.57 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
   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:   17.80 %,  18.00 ft / 5.49 m,  16.00 ft / 4.88 m
      - Forward deck:   39.80 %,  16.00 ft / 4.88 m,  16.00 ft / 4.88 m
      - Aft deck:   29.60 %,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m
      - Quarter deck:   12.80 %,  16.00 ft / 4.88 m,  16.00 ft / 4.88 m
      - Average freeboard:      14.07 ft / 4.29 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 129.7 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 113.2 %
   Waterplane Area: 10,506 Square feet or 976 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 105 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 62 lbs/sq ft or 305 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.93
      - Longitudinal: 1.79
      - Overall: 1.00
   Cramped 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

Fore Deck used to simulate both Fore Deck and Raised portion of Aft Deck
23.3 Percent foreward
16.5 Percent aft

Misc Weight
18 tons of Stuff (as this was an experiment I didn't bother figuring it out)

[Kaiser Kirk]

Another Experiment in keeping with our Cruiser rules thread.  More or less a Copy of a German CL (Konigsberg class 1905) with some liberties taken to improve gun layout (the fore and aft pair are SF instead of being side by side).  However it worked more or less (I had to add tonnage to get them up to a 1.00 as they came in at a .91 so would work with our .9 proposal).  Lots of stuff would be outside the armour based on this sim (but that appears to be a period thing)

.91?  Nice experiment. 
Sounds like we're onto something useful :)

[Tanthalas]

Another Experiment in keeping with our Cruiser rules thread.  More or less a Copy of a German CL (Konigsberg class 1905) with some liberties taken to improve gun layout (the fore and aft pair are SF instead of being side by side).  However it worked more or less (I had to add tonnage to get them up to a 1.00 as they came in at a .91 so would work with our .9 proposal).  Lots of stuff would be outside the armour based on this sim (but that appears to be a period thing)

.91?  Nice experiment. 
Sounds like we're onto something useful :)

I think so a lot of them I have simmed last few days come in around a .89-.92 with our proposed 1 meter/3 foot belt used to simulate the heavier portions of the deck. (the over grown destroyers the brits built as scout cruisers are lower but *shrug*)

[Tanthalas]

Continuing to work on my for Construction Cruiser, mostly adjustments I discovered were necessary during the drawing process.  This ship is seriously "tight" (as in DAMN there aint a lot of room even now).  Honestly I don't think a 7X6" broadside would fit on less length (I honestly question it on this length)...

CLX-1904-2, Unified Netherlands Second Class Cruiser laid down 1904 (Engine 1905)

Displacement:
   3,500 t light; 3,641 t standard; 4,108 t normal; 4,482 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (450.00 ft / 447.00 ft) x 40.00 ft x (16.50 / 17.61 ft)
   (137.16 m / 136.25 m) x 12.19 m  x (5.03 / 5.37 m)

Armament:
      7 - 6.00" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 100.00lbs / 45.36kg shells, 150 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1904 Model
     7 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
      3 raised mounts
      Weight of broadside 700 lbs / 318 kg

Armour:
   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   0.75" / 19 mm   0.25" / 6 mm      0.50" / 13 mm

   - Protected deck - single deck:
   For and Aft decks: 1.50" / 38 mm
   Forecastle: 1.00" / 25 mm  Quarter deck: 1.00" / 25 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 3.00" / 76 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 20,000 shp / 14,920 Kw = 25.00 kts
   Range 5,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 841 tons (90% coal)

Complement:
   256 - 333

Cost:
   £0.423 million / $1.692 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 202 tons, 4.9 %
      - Guns: 202 tons, 4.9 %
   Armour: 348 tons, 8.5 %
      - Armament: 17 tons, 0.4 %
      - Armour Deck: 314 tons, 7.6 %
      - Conning Tower: 17 tons, 0.4 %
   Machinery: 1,632 tons, 39.7 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,278 tons, 31.1 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 608 tons, 14.8 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 40 tons, 1.0 %
      - On freeboard deck: 40 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     2,108 lbs / 956 Kg = 19.5 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 0.6 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.17
   Metacentric height 1.7 ft / 0.5 m
   Roll period: 13.0 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 74 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.66
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.28

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.487 / 0.498
   Length to Beam Ratio: 11.18 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 21.14 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 8.33 degrees
   Stern overhang: -3.00 ft / -0.91 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   14.70 %,  20.50 ft / 6.25 m,  19.00 ft / 5.79 m
      - Forward deck:   15.00 %,  19.00 ft / 5.79 m,  18.00 ft / 5.49 m
      - Aft deck:   56.80 %,  10.50 ft / 3.20 m,  10.50 ft / 3.20 m
      - Quarter deck:   13.50 %,  10.50 ft / 3.20 m,  10.50 ft / 3.20 m
      - Average freeboard:      13.04 ft / 3.97 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 144.6 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 106.6 %
   Waterplane Area: 11,774 Square feet or 1,094 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 94 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 70 lbs/sq ft or 341 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.98
      - Longitudinal: 1.14
      - 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

40 tons Misc Weight
25 tons long range wireless set
15 tons stuff (aka I havnt decided what yet, consider it a reserve for the moment)

[Kaiser Kirk]

I'm going to admit to being very dubious as to how you can fit those 7 guns in.  Looking at the Yubari you reference elsewhere, if you substituted 6" guns for the torpedoes...that still is only 6 spots.

If we're going with our proposed protected deck rules, your " Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 144.6 %" is too high for a protective deck.

There's also the 11.18 L:B. Reading the earlier comments, particularly Logi's discussion on the 10th, I think you're pushing things. It does appear the Japanese tended towards longer L:Bs, but also those ships are 10-15years later, during a period metallurgy changed a great deal. Looking at the IJN Tone, Yoda and Chikuma- the contempary vessels- they do not have that fine L:B.   Could you do it? Sure - but you should be forewarned.

With the 38mm slopes it is still pretty vulnerable to Common rounds. Though it's probably proof against HE.

Then there's the range. From google earth it's enough..barely.  You've got roughly a 400nm margin to make Djiobouti, another 400nm to make Batavia, 150nm to make the mouth of the Congo, and 800nm to Dutch Guiana. Now, if you have to cruise at something other than your economical rate, either slower as escorting a Merchant, or faster for combat, you will run out. So if you just plan to leave it on station, it's all good, but if the conception involves wartime transit, you may want more.

[Tanthalas]

No need to address your points individually, But I will hit the high points even though I actually agree with you on every single point Kirk. 

On the gun number (thought I should address it anyway for Clarity, well it and the range) 6 guns is IMHO far more reasonable for this hull, and anything much shorter I would personally question even 6 guns centerline.

Range issue I personally view 5K as the absolute Minimum I can accept (as you noted it is enough just barely under ideal conditions I am actually leaning toward 5500-6K as Ideal).

Personally I view the current armour as insufficient, but then again I never liked protected Cruisers... a .9 composite would let me kick the slopes up to 3"/76mm (which is much better IMHO).

as to L-B and BC (I view em kinda as one and the same in this case) I would MUCH rather shorten the hull and widen it out a bit the length was actually driven by my desire for a 7 gun broadside (which as I pointed out earlier I don't think honestly fits even at this length).

I wont actually lay one of them down until H105 at the earliest (H2 is more realistic proly), and I will continue to play with them right up to that point most likely.  Then again if the cruiser rules get changed the whole hull gets more or less scraped as an idea since a .90 composite changes everything.