Koko Kyouwakoku (Republic of Koko)

[Krakatoa]

I like the idea of a triple 5.5" turret. This gives your cruisers a good main armament, which would be the equal of most CL's of the time.

The only question I would have is over the height of the funnels, which look a lot shorter than the Agano class which your CL's resemble.

[emperor_andreas]

Beautiful work! LOVE the camo schemes!

[BB1987]

The only question I would have is over the height of the funnels, which look a lot shorter than the Agano class which your CL's resemble.

Thechnically, the funnel is higher than that of Japanese light cruiser disegns of the same timeframe. The Agano with it's higher funnel is a later design. Still, I might give a try and see how a taller funnel looks on those cruisers, I might even get away with it as a design flaw that required the ships to have the funnels heightened a bit to avoid some smoke intoxication for the recon plane pilots. Sounds quite nice and beliavable now that I think of!
Stay tuned, I'll may change some things tomorrow. And thanks for the imput.

[Hood]

Another excellent addition, the design looks very good and the history and camo schemes are excellent as usual.

[Blackbuck]

As ever, you find a way to make Japanese outline ships not horrendous to look at.

That triple 140mm gives me an idea for a stepping stone cruiser too.

[BB1987]

Hi all.

I've modified all drawings except for Kazami as built. Now the funnels are higher and their height issue has stuck in their backstories as an early design flaw.

[erik_t]

I wonder if efforts would be made to make a 5.5" triple a DP mount. I also wonder how successful those efforts might be in that era.

[Tobius]

I wonder if efforts would be made to make a 5.5" triple a DP mount. I also wonder how successful those efforts might be in that era.

Depends on the weight of the shell. The USN tried for a 6 inch DP naval gun.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-47DP_mk16.htm

How successful they were, I do not know. The article implies that there were issues in the feed system.

[erik_t]

I mean, I said "in that era" for a reason. The Mk 16 came into being with the full benefit of the experience of both American and British efforts to make a useful 4.5-6" DP mount, and in particular I think the weaknesses of the 5.25" on the KGVs and the 6" on the British cruisers.

Many powers designed and built large-caliber DP mounts that were ultimately too slow-loading or too ponderous to be useful against the higher performance aircraft that started appearing in the early 1940s.

[Tobius]

I mean, I said "in that era" for a reason. The Mk 16 came into being with the full benefit of the experience of both American and British efforts to make a useful 4.5-6" DP mount, and in particular I think the weaknesses of the 5.25" on the KGVs and the 6" on the British cruisers.

Many powers designed and built large-caliber DP mounts that were ultimately too slow-loading or too ponderous to be useful against the higher performance aircraft that started appearing in the early 1940s.

That era includes the Mark 16 (It was a 1937 designed gun mount that is descended from the Mark 8 six inch bore predecessor). I do not pretend to know exactly why the US gun failed, but I do know historically that it was not considered a success and that down to the present many other attempts to produce a high angle (or articulated) mount for large bore weapons greater than 12.5 cm in diameter have met with an equally remarkable lack of success. There are exceptions like the Borfors 12 and 16 cm mortars that are popular with armies today, but those are the exceptions to what seems to be a general mechanical rule. The handling gear fails at some critical threshold shell weight line it appears.