Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Taksin Cruisers

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Taksin Cruisers Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Taksin Cruisers - 3/19/2016 5:55:21 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3058
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Does anyone have the art work for the Thai Taksin Cruisers, that I could have?

Another question. The Omaha class wasn't a great cruiser class. I have read that it was almost replaced before most of the class was built. Does anyone know what designs were considered to replace it with?

thanks
Post #: 1
RE: Taksin Cruisers - 3/19/2016 3:37:32 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I've done a lot of work with the Omaha's in my Mods.

Should have material regarding 'other' options in my Masters Research. Will try to look after work.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 2
RE: Taksin Cruisers - 3/20/2016 6:50:27 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16786
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Although I offer no scenario with these ships, RHS class 2209 has them. It points at the art, which
I believe was done by Cobra Aus in WITP days for an early form of RHS. Both the data and the art are
contained in this link to RHS current release.

Level II Comprehensive Update Link 1.431
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=30E506228938D79E!33899&authkey=!AEms6pC46mkIZq4&ithint=file%2cmsi



quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Does anyone have the art work for the Thai Taksin Cruisers, that I could have?

Another question. The Omaha class wasn't a great cruiser class. I have read that it was almost replaced before most of the class was built. Does anyone know what designs were considered to replace it with?

thanks


(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 3
RE: Taksin Cruisers - 3/20/2016 7:40:15 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 2371
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
Some introductory discussion points while John3rd reviews his material:

According to Conways, the original Omaha design work was done in 1915-16, and funds voted as part of the 1916 building program, as scout cruisers that would be superior to the then building RN Centaur class*. The 1916 program was suspended in 1917 to prioritise ASW escorts, with the ships completed post war.

[*which they were, the Centaurs carried only 5 x 6", were smaller and 6 knots slower; the Omahas had better armour protection. Centaur & Concord were scrapped in 1934/35; the various C-class ships of the subsequent Caledon, Ceres, & Carlisle subclasses in the OOB were not greatly different, and 8 of the 12 extant in 1941 were converted to CLAA, mostly before 1940.]

The Omaha design was reviewed as a result of wartime experience at at time when the transition from casemate guns to turrets was gathering speed, and they ended up with a bit of both, with twin turrets in A and Y locations, and four casemate guns on each side, double stacked fore & aft, so it had 8 gun broadsides, and 6 guns each could train fore & aft. The aft lower casemate guns were landed in 1940/41 and the apertures faired over to save weight, and because the lower casemates were very wet and often inoperable as a result, reducing the effective armament to 10 x 6". Conways also indicates that it was intended to replace those two guns with one gun in an open mount on the centre line aft, but this "programme ... was incomplete in 1941". Forward casemates were also landed later in at least one ship, Detroit. Conways (p120)has a sketch of Detroit in 1944 showing only one forward casemate, albeit it appears they landed the upper casemate, not the lower, one expects to make weight for more AAA weapons; possibly a 'çaptain's call'. Likewise the lower deck torpedo tubes were later landed, and the launching hatches faired over. The originally included mine-laying capability was dropped after the ships were commissioned. They were designed with scouting aircraft catapaults from the outset.

Other alternative designs that were considered were:


Original design, 1915
- had 10 x 6", 8 in the casemates, two open mounts deck level amidships, no turrets, and a minelaying capability (224 mines), 4 torpedo tubes - two twins firing out hatches from the deck below. Two triples above deck were added later.


February 1916 General Board small BC proposal - replace main armament with 2 single turreted 14" guns, reminiscent of the RN Courageous & Glorious as originally designed. BurConsRep accordingly prepared "design 160". A very bad idea, and not taken up.


October 1920 Bureau of Construction and Repair re-design- (eight ships still building) - re-arrange the armament in 4 twin centre line turrets, AB/XY (like the later RN Leander class). A really good idea, would have fixed a lot of weight problems while maintaining broadside, rejected due to funding constraints.


1921 - a derivative with 4 x 8" guns in two turrets to out-match the armament of the RN Hawkins class; this design was enlarged to the Pensacola class, and was taken to the Washington conference and set the parameters for the 'ÇA' treaty cruiser adopted there, although the CA designation was not applied until 1931.


The October 1920 design was retained as the "next" CL design, but none were ever built as the money and tonnage was devoted to the treaty cruiser - CAs. Ultimately the much more modern Brooklyn design was adopted instead.






_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 4
RE: Taksin Cruisers - 3/20/2016 7:58:02 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 2371
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
Looks like they landed the forward upper casemates after 1942:

Edit - can't get the photo to show inline - google navsource USS Detroit CL-8.



< Message edited by Ian R -- 3/20/2016 9:21:52 AM >


_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 5
RE: Taksin Cruisers - 3/20/2016 10:20:17 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3058
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Thanks everyone for your help. I have been looking at the spring styles book online. I didn't see the design for the Oct 1920 design. I figured someone with a cruiser book would respond with an answer.

Sid I will take a look at the link when I get off of work.

So does anyone know why the US didn't build any large destroyers/leaders?

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 6
RE: Taksin Cruisers - 3/20/2016 7:36:23 PM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 2371
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
Money, mainly. The General Board proposed a class of 5 leaders in 1920 but funding was refused. After WW1 they had hundreds of near-mint flush deckers tied up in reserve, and rotated them out to use. Eventually a bunch were scrapped in 1930, usually the ones with the inferior Yarrow boilers, and the rest sailed on into the next war in a variety of roles and conversions.

The USN didn't get a new destroyer until the Farragut commissioned in 1934, and then the Porters x8/Somers x5 were built as large DDs/leaders, and to use up a specific tonnage allowance in the London treaty (Total DD tonnage was 150,000 of which 16% could be > than 1500t/sd, to a maximum of 1850t = 13 leaders).

The Fletchers were over 2000 t sd as originally designed, and about the same dimensions as the Porters, so the need for a leader (with extra space for the squadron Commodore and his staff) fell away.

_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 7
RE: Taksin Cruisers - 3/31/2016 2:27:59 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3058
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Ian R: Thanks for your information.

Sid: Thanks for the Taskin art and info.

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 8
RE: Taksin Cruisers - 3/31/2016 5:24:19 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16786
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Thanks everyone for your help. I have been looking at the spring styles book online. I didn't see the design for the Oct 1920 design. I figured someone with a cruiser book would respond with an answer.

Sid I will take a look at the link when I get off of work.

So does anyone know why the US didn't build any large destroyers/leaders?



Actually, the US did build large destroyers and leaders. Both before the war (see, for example, the Porter, with
8 five inch guns) and late in the war (see Gearing, with six five inch guns and a dozen 40 mm).

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 9
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Taksin Cruisers Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125