Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
JohnPJones

8” Omaha variant?

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,259 posts
6,734 battles

Just wondering if anyone knows if the Omaha hull could have mounted the dual 8” turret like the Pensacola class used, or if that would have been too big or put too much stress on the hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,409
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,258 posts
2,029 battles
4 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

Just wondering if anyone knows if the Omaha hull could have mounted the dual 8” turret like the Pensacola class used, or if that would have been too big or put too much stress on the hull.

It would be impossible. The Omaha's twins only weighed 52.6 metric tons - the twin 8", turrets were 190 tons, so it's almost four times the weight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,259 posts
6,734 battles
3 hours ago, Phoenix_jz said:

It would be impossible The Omaha's twins only weighed 52.6 metric tons - the twin 8", turrets were 190 tons, so it's almost four times the weight. 

Well darn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
84
[PQUOD]
Members
288 posts
6,290 battles

Off the subject of the Omaha. I read where it was the last USN ship to receive a performance bonus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,847
Supertester, Members, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
11,236 posts
1,928 battles

Odds are the 8" twin is physically too large for the ship too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,197
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,809 posts
10,327 battles

 

On 9/22/2018 at 1:00 PM, Phoenix_jz said:

It would be impossible. The Omaha's twins only weighed 52.6 metric tons - the twin 8", turrets were 190 tons, so it's almost four times the weight. 

 

1 hour ago, mr3awsome said:

Odds are the 8" twin is physically too large for the ship too. 

I think it would definitely be very difficult, the Pensacola uses a twin in A position because the hull is so fine, but Omaha is ~3m narrower on the beam and her turret position is really far forward.

On weight, I think there might be a tenuous way to squeeze it. You have a twin turret at 53t, and 4x1 casemates at 19t apiece - so about 130t total, plus potentially cutting down the forward superstructure around the casemate guns. That's still less weight, but the Pensacola turret is reasonably armored with 64mm face, 38mm roof, 25mm sides, 19mm rear (at least in game and the min/max values fit). If you sacrificed some of that armor protection, thinning it down to 25mm all around say then that might be a good weight saving.

Then again the weight of the gun tube itself on the 6in is about 1/3 that of the 8in.

Even if you did do all that and ended up with a 2x2 8in Omaha, I don't know how attractive that low volume of firepower would be, unless removing the after superstructure lets you mount two turrets back there for a 6-gun broadside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
245
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,347 posts
9,543 battles

Probably not, it looks like the Omaha's hull isn't much wider than the turret ring on the 8" mount.

An actual improvement would be to replace the 6"/53 cals with 5"/38 cal DP guns and just use the ships as big AA destroyers

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
432
[FAE]
Members
2,161 posts
2,639 battles
10 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

Probably not, it looks like the Omaha's hull isn't much wider than the turret ring on the 8" mount.

An actual improvement would be to replace the 6"/53 cals with 5"/38 cal DP guns and just use the ships as big AA destroyers

Anything is a sea-borne AA platform if it floats and you can put guns on it. merica

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,066
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,177 posts
11,693 battles
On 9/22/2018 at 4:00 PM, Phoenix_jz said:

It would be impossible. The Omaha's twins only weighed 52.6 metric tons - the twin 8", turrets were 190 tons, so it's almost four times the weight. 

This.  The twin 6"/53 from Omaha was actually /lighter/ than the twin 5"/38 on...almost everything the USN built

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,060
[NDA]
Supertester
4,843 posts
13,808 battles

If you go to Patriots Point Ship Museum, outside of Charleston SC, and look all the ship models they have under glass you will see an interesting variant of the Omaha. 
Sorry for the quality. 

s2ML938.jpg

ybYQdqy.jpg

I figure this is the AA focused Omaha, WG will need to give it Defensive Fire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,847
Supertester, Members, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
11,236 posts
1,928 battles
16 hours ago, SgtBeltfed said:

Probably not, it looks like the Omaha's hull isn't much wider than the turret ring on the 8" mount.

An actual improvement would be to replace the 6"/53 cals with 5"/38 cal DP guns and just use the ships as big AA destroyers

Why not have the best of both?

OmahaCLAAsketchplan.gif

2 x II 6"/53, 7 x I 5"/38 & 6 x IV 1.1"/75 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
255
[REVY]
Members
951 posts
7,518 battles
On 9/26/2018 at 8:49 PM, RedSeaBear said:

If you go to Patriots Point Ship Museum, outside of Charleston SC, and look all the ship models they have under glass you will see an interesting variant of the Omaha. 
Sorry for the quality. 

s2ML938.jpg

ybYQdqy.jpg

I figure this is the AA focused Omaha, WG will need to give it Defensive Fire. 

What I see missing on that are four of the casement guns, likely removed to balance the added weight of the AA weapons. I also see that the last of the torpedo tubes have been removed.

 

I'm curious if this was an actual late war refit. Of course by the end of the war the Omahas were pretty much relegated to secondary fronts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
289
[JFSOC]
Members
934 posts
2,818 battles
On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 4:06 PM, SgtBeltfed said:

Probably not, it looks like the Omaha's hull isn't much wider than the turret ring on the 8" mount.

An actual improvement would be to replace the 6"/53 cals with 5"/38 cal DP guns and just use the ships as big AA destroyers

At one point the USN actually considered turning them into AA cruisers.  This involved removing all the casemated 6" guns, torpedo tubes, along with the 3"/50 AA guns and replacing them with (variously) 7 to 9 5"/25 or 38 guns (singles) and two MK 19 directors and 6 or 7 1.1" quad mounts.

The problems with this was siting the guns such that they wouldn't interfere with each other by blast during operation,  as deck space was insufficient, that the Mk 19 directors were outdated and could only handle aircraft targets to 225 knots as well as lacking remote control capacity to direct the guns, and that there was insufficient space aboard for the required amounts of ammunition and crew to man the guns.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[CVA16]
Members
2,292 posts
9,862 battles
3 hours ago, Lord_Slayer said:

What I see missing on that are four of the casement guns, likely removed to balance the added weight of the AA weapons. I also see that the last of the torpedo tubes have been removed.

If this was available as a tech tree upgrade or premium, think many would take it? Nice to have the AA (probably best T5 cruiser) but loss of 2 guns (per broadside) and the torps...Ouch.

Could give it better fire control yielding better range and/or sigma. Hey the US gave one to the Russians and it became a better boat.

Might be fun to troll CVs that see an Omaha as an easy target (assuming they didn't check it on the team screen) and end up getting their planes shredded. Seeing a lot more CVs at the lower tiers lately.

I notice they didn't do the trunked funnels like the one plan shows.

Edited by Sabot_100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[CVA16]
Members
2,292 posts
9,862 battles

Guessing the AA as:

5X2 40mm

14x1 20mm (or are some of those 3"?)

Photo is a bit blurry.

Edited by Sabot_100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
289
[JFSOC]
Members
934 posts
2,818 battles
1 hour ago, Sabot_100 said:

If this was available as a tech tree upgrade or premium, think many would take it? Nice to have the AA (probably best T5 cruiser) but loss of 2 guns (per broadside) and the torps...Ouch.

Could give it better fire control yielding better range and/or sigma. Hey the US gave one to the Russians and it became a better boat.

Might be fun to troll CVs that see an Omaha as an easy target (assuming they didn't check it on the team screen) and end up getting their planes shredded. Seeing a lot more CVs at the lower tiers lately.

I notice they didn't do the trunked funnels like the one plan shows.

This was the 1944 AA refit that some Omaha's underwent.  This was in response to the very limited ability of the Germans or Japanese to field any sort of ships at sea versus the increasing threat of Kamikazes and the potential for enemy aircraft to appear.  In the real setting, the torpedoes were worthless and little more than dead weight.  Yes, they have more value in the game.

The AA suite added was all light weapons (20mm 1.1", 40mm) because the Omaha's lacked a fire control system for their heavier (3"/50) AA guns.  That meant that upgrading these did little of real value and it wasn't worth a major rework of the ship to add 5" / 38 guns and directors.  Losing a few 6" in the casemates wasn't a big deal in reality either.  It probably would be more so in the game.

As refit an Omaha would have 2 or 3 twin 40mm mounts, 8 20mm guns (grouped in two sets of 4, one aft and one forward around the two superstructures), 8 3"/50 AA.  The Cincinnati got 2 additional 40mm single US Army style guns in place of the torpedo tubes.

The model shows the ultimate upgrade in 1945 where two additional 6" casemate guns forward were removed and replaced by 2 additional 2 x 40mm  mounts.

Edited by Murotsu
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[CVA16]
Members
2,292 posts
9,862 battles
9 minutes ago, Murotsu said:

This was the 1944 AA refit that some Omaha's underwent.  This was in response to the very limited ability of the Germans or Japanese to field any sort of ships at sea versus the increasing threat of Kamikazes and the potential for enemy aircraft to appear.  In the real setting, the torpedoes were worthless and little more than dead weight.  Yes, they have more value in the game.

So, with some magic upgrade to the remaining 6" guns (Russian gunners?) would the ship be viable in WOWS? Relatively good AA, fewer but better guns, no torps.

Other potential tweaks: DFAA, Better (german) hydro. Smoke (only US cruiser with it?)

Or make it the Tier 4 terror of all CVs.

Kind of eases you into the follow-on Dallas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
255
[REVY]
Members
951 posts
7,518 battles

based on the current game meta..... the 'all AA' ship likely wouldn't do all that well.

CVs are currently rare. Having all that AA really doesn't get you much when you are primarily going to see surface action only.

The version in the game is probably the most optimal. The 'ultimate' AA Omaha would still have that large citadel and with fewer 6in guns the DDs might risk getting closer and getting in a few citadels as well as torps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,981
[ANG]
Alpha Tester
4,689 posts
1,726 battles
On 9/22/2018 at 12:51 PM, JohnPJones said:

Just wondering if anyone knows if the Omaha hull could have mounted the dual 8” turret like the Pensacola class used, or if that would have been too big or put too much stress on the hull.

Not without significant changes. That said, it was at least considered in Scout Cruiser 1921, which was intended to counter the Hawkins-class. A widened Omaha hull would have carried two twin 8" turrets. (For reference, ingame Phoenix is basically the Scout Cruiser 1919 design and Omaha is Scout Cruiser 1920.)

The design was not pursued and eventually evolved into Pensacola after more work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
255
[REVY]
Members
951 posts
7,518 battles

Supposedly, the gun mount that fired the last shot of WW2 from USS Concord still exists and is at the Washington Navy Yard museum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[GETH]
Members
35 posts
5,266 battles

while the hull design was a fantastic sucess for speed, the omahas suffered for it. the hulls were prone to developing faults that could very well have led to actual hull breakup at sea.(the US was not alone in this type of thing. find the tale of the japanese problems with ships in the 1930's)

their design was fueled by the pre-spotting aircraft era. they were meant to be the flagship of a DD group, providing an admiral and his staff a larger, more comfortable platform to direct a DD group's spotting for enemy forces and to provide a heavier DD killing punch if necessary.

scout cruiser.  it was a serious concept for a while in the US navy.

there was no "heavy cruiser" or "light cruiser" at that time.  those two terms are a creation of treaty definitions defined by gun size and nothing else, hence the 8" gunned pensacola class switching from light to heavy designation at the signing of a paper.  

by the time they came into service, omahas were pretty much white elephants, but the money had been spent and in the cash strapped era, they were used.

though  considered somewhat weak hulled as i mentioned, read of marblehead's journey all the way from the southwest pacific to continental US. 

keep in mind that the omaha was sort of a marriage between old and new.  turrets and casemate guns on a cruiser type hull. tall mast for optical spotting and scout planes.  times, they were a'changing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×