Can you design a small CL?

[Burningapple3]

If you try to design a 2000 to 2500 ton CL, it is said to be an illegal design.Is it possible to build a CL of this size?

[wlbjork]

I don't remember having any success with a CL design below 2,600t

[TheOtherPoster]

I think the developers decided not to allow torpedoes on cruises under 2600tm.the reason is unknown to me but I'm sure it's for our own good

Try deleting the torpedo tubes from your design.

[Burningapple3]

Nov 23, 2023 23:53:54 GMT -6 TheOtherPoster said:

I think the developers decided not to allow torpedoes on cruises under 2600tm.the reason is unknown to me but I'm sure it's for our own good

Try deleting the torpedo tubes from your design.

Removing the torpedo tube will change it to KE

[oldpop2000]

Let's take a brief look at the history of cruisers. Their original function was blockade enforcement, commerce raiding, scouting and sea-denial. They evolved into carrier strike group offense and protection. I've provided a link to an interesting chart of the evolution of US Navy cruisers. I can and will, try to find documents on GB, France and Japan if required.

usnhistory.navylive.dodlive.mil/Recent/Article-View/Article/2686298/a-look-at-the-evolution-of-the-us-navy-cruiser/

Now the question becomes does it make sense based on the above information to build a 2000 ton cruiser. Well, let's examine the original functionality of the cruiser.

1. Blockade enforcement - this is now conducted by submarines and long range aircraft.
2. Commerce raiding - Submarines now conduct this function but bombers can also provide this function.
3. Scouting - Again, submarines, and now long range aircraft both land and sea based.
4. Sea- Denial - Well, the whole group of ships i.e. submarines, land and sea based aircraft and Carriers now perform that function.

This leads us to the conclusion that the function of the cruiser is now focused on Carrier strike group offense but more importantly protection. So what does this cruiser functionality require: Armor protection, larger guns like 6 and 8 inch and speed. These characteristics allowed the cruiser to perform not only sea denial bu counter-sea denial which required high speed and long range gunfire. It also necessitated deck armor to provide some armor protection for the machinery and ordnance storage.

So, to get high speed needs a good length to beam and powerful engines. Long range gunfire requires larger guns, with long barrels and turrets to provide a wide area of firepower. Deck armor provides modest protection against gunfire from enemy ships.

Based on this reasoning, a ship of around 4000 tons is the minimun needed to get all those specifications. Length to beam will increase the weight as will the machinery and fuel. The guns will increase the weight along with the necessary ammunition and storage.

This is my personal assessment.

[oldpop2000]

Ok, Here is my design for a light cruiser using Springsharp. Full load tonnage is now 2136 Tons.

Stromboli, Italy light cruiser laid down 1900

Displacement:
1,850 t light; 1,929 t standard; 2,044 t normal; 2,136 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(230.00 ft / 230.00 ft) x 35.00 ft x (22.00 / 22.68 ft)
(70.10 m / 70.10 m) x 10.67 m x (6.71 / 6.91 m)

Armament:
4 - 6.00" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.93lbs / 49.41kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1900 Model
2 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 x Single mounts on sides amidships
6 - 2.00" / 50.8 mm 45.0 cal guns - 4.03lbs / 1.83kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1900 Model
6 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 460 lbs / 209 kg
Main Torpedoes
2 - 18.0" / 457 mm, 0.00 ft / 0.00 m torpedoes - 0.000 t each, 0.000 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted side rotating tubes

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

- Armoured 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 1.00" / 25 mm, Aft 1.00" / 25 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 1 shaft, 7,256 ihp / 5,413 Kw = 20.00 kts
Range 2,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 207 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
151 - 197

Cost:
£0.239 million / $0.956 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 129 tons, 6.3 %
- Guns: 129 tons, 6.3 %
Armour: 126 tons, 6.2 %
- Armament: 31 tons, 1.5 %
- Armour Deck: 88 tons, 4.3 %
- Conning Towers: 7 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 942 tons, 46.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 654 tons, 32.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 194 tons, 9.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
895 lbs / 406 Kg = 8.3 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.45
Metacentric height 2.0 ft / 0.6 m
Roll period: 10.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 34 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.52
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.36

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.404 / 0.409
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.57 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 15.17 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 17
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 %, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Average freeboard: 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 168.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 94.8 %
Waterplane Area: 4,699 Square feet or 437 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 73 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 62 lbs/sq ft or 300 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.78
- Longitudinal: 9.81
- Overall: 1.00
Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Adequate accommodation and workspace room
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

[Burningapple3]

Nov 24, 2023 9:22:10 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Let's take a brief look at the history of cruisers. Their original function was blockade enforcement, commerce raiding, scouting and sea-denial. They evolved into carrier strike group offense and protection. I've provided a link to an interesting chart of the evolution of US Navy cruisers. I can and will, try to find documents on GB, France and Japan if required.

usnhistory.navylive.dodlive.mil/Recent/Article-View/Article/2686298/a-look-at-the-evolution-of-the-us-navy-cruiser/

Now the question becomes does it make sense based on the above information to build a 2000 ton cruiser. Well, let's examine the original functionality of the cruiser.

1. Blockade enforcement - this is now conducted by submarines and long range aircraft.
2. Commerce raiding - Submarines now conduct this function but bombers can also provide this function.
3. Scouting - Again, submarines, and now long range aircraft both land and sea based.
4. Sea- Denial - Well, the whole group of ships i.e. submarines, land and sea based aircraft and Carriers now perform that function.

This leads us to the conclusion that the function of the cruiser is now focused on Carrier strike group offense but more importantly protection. So what does this cruiser functionality require: Armor protection, larger guns like 6 and 8 inch and speed. These characteristics allowed the cruiser to perform not only sea denial bu counter-sea denial which required high speed and long range gunfire. It also necessitated deck armor to provide some armor protection for the machinery and ordnance storage.

So, to get high speed needs a good length to beam and powerful engines. Long range gunfire requires larger guns, with long barrels and turrets to provide a wide area of firepower. Deck armor provides modest protection against gunfire from enemy ships.

Based on this reasoning, a ship of around 4000 tons is the minimun needed to get all those specifications. Length to beam will increase the weight as will the machinery and fuel. The guns will increase the weight along with the necessary ammunition and storage.

This is my personal assessment.

I decided to design a 2000tCL to ensure low cost and blockade value.

The design was based on the Pelorus class, which was used for patrolling in the colonies.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelorus-class_cruiser

This ship doesn't seem to have a good reputation in real life, but I designed it to see if it could be used in a game.

These are the reasons I set out to design a small CL.

The manual and in-game notations allow for a 2000t CL, but I could not design it properly when I tried.

[TheOtherPoster]

Well thought analysis as always, oldpop2000 . But maybe with a bit of oversight? 


In fact small cruisers were quite common in the late 19th and early 20th Century (DDs were few and very small, between 300 and 500tm so these small cruisers were really filling a gap).

In the late 19th Century there was a short lived craze on so called torpedo cruisers, very small ships under 2000tm, like the Austrian Panther or the Italian Agordat. RTW3 does not allow to build those.

Slightly bigger were the 3rd class cruisers like Burningapple3 Pelorus or the Pearl class, up to 3000tm or so. And yes, they were found to be too small for cruiser duties.

The most successful were the 2nd class cruisers, like the Apollo and Town classes, slightly bigger but cheap enough to be built in enough numbers.

1st class cruisers (CA) were much bigger and powerful… but also much more expensive, almost as battleships, so there were never enough of them around. They somehow competed for funds with battleships: a 1st class cruiser built was a battleships less in the battle line.

Going back to the original question:
in RTW2 you could build 2100tm CLs but without torpedoes. To carry torpedoes CLs had to be at least 2600tm. 
But the developers have made a change in RTW3: now KEs can carry armour and be up to 2500tm.
In other words: in RTW2 you could design CLs between 2100 and 2500tm as long as they did not carry torpedoes. Now in RTW3, as you can build KEs of up to 2500tm, the game just identify those ships as KE.

I think it may be unintended by the developers? Maybe this is something they should look at. My opinion is that they should allow torpedoes on all CLs, including the smaller size. That way the AI would not misidentify the type. 

[oldpop2000]

Nov 24, 2023 15:09:12 GMT -6 TheOtherPoster said:

Well thought analysis as always, oldpop2000 . But maybe with a bit of oversight? 


In fact small cruisers were quite common in the late 19th and early 20th Century (DDs were few and very small, between 300 and 500tm so these small cruisers were really filling a gap).

In the 1890s there was a short lived craze on so called torpedo cruisers, very small ships under 2000tm. RTW3 does not allow to build those.

Slightly bigger were the 3rd class cruisers like Burningapple3 Pelorus or the Pearl class, up to 3000tm or so. And yes, they and anything under their displacement was found to be too small for cruiser duties.

The most successful were the 2nd class cruisers, like the Apollo and Town classes.

1st class cruisers were much bigger and powerful… but also much more expensive, almost as battleships, so there were never enough of them around. They somehow competed for funds with battleships: a 1st class cruiser built was a battleships less in the battle line.

Going back to the original question:
in RTW2 CLs had to be at least 2100tm, but to carry torpedoes their displacement had to be at least 2600tm. 
But the developers have made a change in RTW3: now KEs can carry armour and be up to 2500tm. In other words: in RTW2 you could design CLs between 2100 and 2500tm as long as they did not carry torpedoes. Now in RTW3, as you can build KEs of up to 2500tm, the game just identify those ships as KE.

I think it may be unintended by the developers? Maybe this is something they should look at. My opinion is that they should allow torpedoes on all CLs, including the smaller size. That way the AI would not misidentify the type. 

Thanks and I am aware of the late 19th century and early 20th century small cruisers. This Italian cruiser was designed in 1900.

[ewaldvonkleist]

My guess is it was banned to disallow 2kt CL strategies that simply go for best ratio money/blockade value.

[Burningapple3]

Nov 24, 2023 15:22:57 GMT -6 ewaldvonkleist said:

My guess is it was banned to disallow 2kt CL strategies that simply go for best ratio money/blockade value.

Maybe so.If that is the case, I wish the limit had been 2600~ instead of 2000~.

[garrisonchisholm]

Nov 23, 2023 23:53:54 GMT -6 TheOtherPoster said:

I think the developers decided not to allow torpedoes on cruises under 2600tm.the reason is unknown to me but I'm sure it's for our own good

This made me chuckle.  ^.^