Is there any particular explanation for why smaller warships and larger warships don't have closer length:beam:draught ratios?
For instance - to take RMN designs from almost the same time and at the height of the "classic" warship design school, at either extreme of that size range:
Samothrace SD:
Introduced 1848 PD
L: 1309m
B: 190m
D: 177m
Falcon DD:
Introduced 1851 PD
L: 355m
B: 42m
D: 24m
If we take each of them so that the length figure gets a value of 1 unit, the proportions run:
Samothrace SD: 1:.145:.135
Falcon DD: 1:.118:.068
In particular, the DD is much flatter (draught about 7% of length as opposed to 13.5%), but the beam is still some 20% reduced too.
The basic cigar shape with hammerheads is imposed by impeller mechanics. I'm not aware of variations on that shape depending on mass or volume that would force smaller ships to be flatter - if someone else has that, boom, it's answered.
The larger ships would traditionally have much more emphasis on armor and on energy weapons, and the smaller ones on missiles. I can easily see more armor making something thicker, but the strongest difference has been in draught, and the thickest armor would be on the sides, increasing beam, since the tops and bottoms of a warship need trivial armor since the wedge protects them. So that would help explain the small beam increase but leave the much larger draught increase still looking for an explanation.
I have the sneaking suspicion the meta reasons are so that ship profiles can be recognizable, and so that the smaller ones can convey sleekness. I just have to think that an in-universe explanation ought to exist too and I haven't found it or guessed it.
