WesWorld

The question has come up as to whether the Omaha's refits fall under a 25% or 50% refit. The changes in question deal with the primary armament on the ships

From:

Quoted

Armament:
4 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (2x2 guns), 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1918 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread
8 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1918 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side ends, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts - superfiring

To

Quoted

Armament:
6 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (3x2 guns), 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1919 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring

I believe the changes in question fall under the following:

Quoted

2.2.2.4 Level 3: Major Refits (cost = 25%, except ships of 2,999 t light or less --> 15%)
-Changes to catapults and/or above-decks seaplane hangers: P
-Alterations to guns of 66mm-195mm not involving barbette alterations: P
-Changes to superstructure (i.e. lengthening or widening a deck, adding a deck house): P

And not under:

Quoted

2.2.2.5 Level 4: Partial Reconstruction (cost = 50%, except ships of 2,999 t light or less --> 25%)
-Replacement of superstructure: P
-Alterations to guns of 66mm-195mm involving barbette alterations: P

The guns do NOT involve barbette alterations, and the superstructure is changed NOT replaced. Here is the Omaha and the Columbia classes. Note the differences
especially on the forward guns. The 6" guns on the Omahas are on deck mounts not barbettes.

What do you guys think?

As I stated in my PMs, I believe the conversion posted in the Mexican encyclopedia is a 50% refit, and not a 25% refit. The list of changes is fairly dramatic, with funnels trunked, the casemate guns removed entirely, and the deck-mounted 6" guns replaced with mount-and-hoist guns. So far as I'm aware, this latter change has always required a 50% reconstruction, because you're cutting holes in the deck and restructuring underneath in order to accommodate a turret stalk, just like you do with a change to a barbette.

Comparing the aft end of the ships, the Guanajuato pair has a substantial bit of superstructure added and altered in order to hold a twin 6" turret. The same change to the superstructure is done with the Chihuahua pair, albeit without the turret.

I think trunking the funnels is another major superstructure alteration that requires changing things in the engine room, which demands a 50% job.




The sims posted in the Mexican encyclopedia also have a lot of almost-but-not-quite differences that would demand a 50% rebuild if we really wanted to split hairs; I think these are mostly errors in reproducing the original sim, however. For instance, the freeboard is not exactly replicated, and the trim of the ship is changed (by 1). According to a strict interpretation of the rules, this latter item requires a 50% rebuild. The bunkerage is changed (somehow... even if the engines themselves weren't, which I find slightly odd), and the armoured belts are six feet longer. If the belt is external, then no problem; if the belt is internal, that's a 50% change.

All in all, there are just a lot of little issues. I think most of them could be fixed by correctly re-simming the conversions with a higher degree of accuracy, thus ensuring you don't exceed the terms of a 25% rebuild. I just identify at least five separate issues which require a 50% reconstruction.

Going from my sim reports, similar work in 1927 on the Colombo class was treated as a 25% refit.

That said, the original sim report was in SS1, so one can argue whether I was "adding" hoists with the post-refit SS2 report or simply including them now that I had the option.

Im going to have to agree with Brock's assessment here with regards to the hoist and superstructure changes. What is described both in the sim and the drawing amount to IMO new hoists and superstructure, not changes to the same.

I believe that Brockpaine has laid out a proper case in this instance; the changes made to the Omaha class vessels in question are sufficient to justify a 50% reconstruction rather than a 25% major refit. He has also suggested a pragmatic approach to resolving the issue, through a more careful sim to cover work falling within the scope of a 25% refit.

I find the reference to the Columbia class confusing, as they are not in question in this circumstance; reference needs to be confined to the original sim for the Omaha class and the two different versions presently in Mexican service.

The rules don't really address hoists in regard to refit costs, just whether or not there are alterations to a barbette, and the size of the weapon. Like Rocky, there are a couple of my ships that have been refitted with hoists, and some of them were only 25% refits.

I'd argue that sinking a hoist into a ship is nowhere near as structurally intrusive or disruptive as addition of or alteration to a barbette, and should not approach the same cost.

From my interpretation of the graphic, however, sufficient work has been done in altering the superstructure to warrant a 50% cost, but very similar functional results could be achieved with less alteration from the baseline Omaha's; retaining the casemates, but plated over whenever possible. But the kind of changes made to accommodate the superfiring turrets (including removal of the casemates) strikes me as costly and major work.

By and large I would argue that major changes to funnel arrangements (ie, anything below deck) counts as modifications to the engines. While an argument could be made for trunking the stacks a la various Japanese efforts, or the 1920 South Dakotas as a minor superstructure alteration (25% cost), the graphic depicts any joining or trunking of the exhausts occurring below deck, which would incur the larger cost.

The Columbias are derived from the earlier Omaha class, but a separate class and designed to accommodate the turrets they have, and not germane to this discussion.

Since it seems we have some different interpretation about whether or not adding mount-and-hoists count as alterations to a barbette, perhaps we should clarify that in the rules once we decide this.

I used the Columbia picture to show the kind of changes involved.

I still completely fail to see how the changes to the superstructure fall under a 50%. The rules state that 50% is for a replacement of a superstructure, not changes to it. Something like the Kongo rebuilds, where they plunked an entire pagoda on them. Not something like this, where the refit doesn't even touch the main superstructure and mainly involves removing stuff, the casement guns and one deck, before placing a mount on top. The Chihuahuas do have superstructure added aft, but that is a two plane hangar, a pretty simple open structure. The funnels are merely aesthetic, I did not touch the engines at all.

As Ive always understood the rule, mount-and-hoists are not barbettes and are not treated as such.

The Pagodas were gradual additions piled on top of the existing bridge structures, and around the tripod masts, actually.

We're getting into subjective existentialism of what consists of 'replacement' vs. 'minor alteration/addition/removal' For entirely cosmetic issues, no one will blink an eye at changes you want to make just being 25%. The issue here is that the changes you're making are not merely aesthetic or to support ancillary equipment, but to support an entire rearrangement of the main armament, which is pretty much the primary and key issue in designing a warship.

The addition of a hangar and aircraft I believe is solidly covered by our rules, and not an issue, except that you've replaced the entire previous aft superstructure to do so.

I will also maintain that to support the graphic you created, you had to do significant alterations and resiting of your engine room's exhausts below decks, which I would count as a change to the engines. My recommendation would be to revise your graphic with the original stacks, or trunk them above the deck, since you say it's only an aesthetic issue; sometimes economy must trump aesthetics, and this would be one of those cases.

I'm also gonna note that your graphic somehow has eliminated the lowered quarterdeck aft, and made the ships flush-decked. That alone has got to be a 50% job, if not 75%.

Also, assuming your aft-most turret is the original, it should be sited much further aft; you could probably install a superfiring turret above it on a new deckhouse extending from the existing superstructure without any wholesale alterations like you've done in the present graphic. That would in fact be my general suggestion for your first ship; instead of a third turret forward, install it aft, and you don't have to make any drastic alterations to the existing superstructure.



These would be my suggestions, though I'm skeptical of the latter's feasability.

First I should mention that the drawings are not perfect, and merely where meant to show the general idea of the refit using drawings I modified, hence the freeboard is not correct. The refit would not make them flushdeck.

Also, I would argue that your proposal is even more extensive than mine. Locating the gun mounts where the casements where, would actually be simpler as you can use the same ammo storage and hoists, and the structure is already strengthen to take on the gun stresses.

Yeah the armament is rearranged, but we are talking about deck mounts on a light cruiser, and the armament actually goes down. I could have bought Columbias and not worried about it, but just wanted to do something different, my ships are actually worse so I'm not seeing what the problem is.

I'm inclined to lean towards 25% for adding/changing hoists.

For one, I think the current rules implicitly do this anyway, given that the presence of a barbette is the stated deciding point between 25% and 50%.

As a matter of proportionality, I also think that adding the hoist can't warrant a cost of 50% when the ship's armament and armor only take up ~2% of total normal weight. Is hoist installation disruptive? Sure. Does it completely bugger half the ship? No.

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

As a matter of proportionality, I also think that adding the hoist can't warrant a cost of 50% when the ship's armament and armor only take up ~2% of total normal weight. Is hoist installation disruptive? Sure. Does it completely bugger half the ship? No.

I have yet to reach an opinion on the question of a general rules change as a result of our discussions here; however, I think it may revolve around the matter of a particular vessel's original design. The Omaha class is, I think, a good case in point.



I found this after view of the USS Marblehead in drydock, which shows the layout of her original armament and after superstructure. There seems to me to be rather little space below deck in which to arrange ammunition hoists. I believe this was the situation that Shin Ra was referring to above.



I also found this photo of the USS Marblehead undergoing demolition, which shows her after turret's base ring. While the camera angle may contribute, it also highlights the lack of below-deck space aft.

These concerns, together with the differences between CanisD's original Springsharps and the refit Springsharps posted, are what lead me to lean to the 50% cost in this instance, which, as has been suggested, can be rectified by a more careful refit Springsharp.

It sounds like from this thread that the option for Mount and Hoist was added in the move from SS1 to SS2, is that correct? If so, what version of SS were the current rules written for, 1 or 2?

Quoted from "snip"

It sounds like from this thread that the option for Mount and Hoist was added in the move from SS1 to SS2, is that correct? If so, what version of SS were the current rules written for, 1 or 2?

Presumably for SS1.

The question of mount-and-hoists seems to be something of a 'gap' in the way our refit rules are set up, so I think this is a valuable discussion to fill in the hole.

Quoted from "Desertfox"

First I should mention that the drawings are not perfect, and merely where meant to show the general idea of the refit using drawings I modified, hence the freeboard is not correct. The refit would not make them flushdeck.

Also, I would argue that your proposal is even more extensive than mine. Locating the gun mounts where the casements where, would actually be simpler as you can use the same ammo storage and hoists, and the structure is already strengthen to take on the gun stresses.

Yeah the armament is rearranged, but we are talking about deck mounts on a light cruiser, and the armament actually goes down. I could have bought Columbias and not worried about it, but just wanted to do something different, my ships are actually worse so I'm not seeing what the problem is.

If your graphic is inaccurate in a key structural detail, I would suggest you have more work to do with the graphic before presenting it to the board as a final representation.

From what I can tell, no hoists served the Omaha's main armament, so there are none to take advantage of. The superfiring turret aft would be served by whatever means serves the original aft turret, and in the case of the latter graphic, the fourth turret is sited atop the casemates.

This all being said...

Quoted

I
have yet to reach an opinion on the question of a general rules change as a result of our discussions here; however, I think it may revolve around the matter of a particular vessel's original design. The Omaha class is, I think, a good case in point.

I'm wary of tying the refit rules too closely to what was/could be done with historical designs; This has come up before, and I found it somewhat unfair to apply a finer microscope to those of us working with historical designs, while players who have gone ahistorical have more freedom to declare what their ships can and can't handle.

The discussion may be enlightening and helpful, but if a player wishes to do something the rules allow for, I do not condone a double standard merely because we have more concrete information available for historical ships than what will show up in a Springsharp.

This all being said, when I considered similar refits for the Hawkins class, I considered resiting the main armament into revolving gunhouses, a la the Omahas, and not served by hoists. That would probably be the most realistic option to pursue.

I'm happy with hoists as a 25% refit, in fact I'd always assumed that barbettes in the rules also included hoists/ all below turret activities! So I was taking a much more conservative view than others here.

Superstructure changes are always going to be a tricky issue and there is no real rule of thumb beyond minor and major changes and using common sense to determine which is which,

So it seems people are leaning more towards making the addition of mount-and-hoists a 25% refit job?

That said, it seems to be pretty clear to me that the original conversion as posted in the encyclopedia was not a 25% job; but I think it should be fairly easy to make the changes necessary to bring it back within the 25% mark.

Quoted

I'm wary of tying the refit rules too closely to what was/could be done with historical designs; This has come up before, and I found it somewhat unfair to apply a finer microscope to those of us working with historical designs, while players who have gone ahistorical have more freedom to declare what their ships can and can't handle.

The discussion may be enlightening and helpful, but if a player wishes to do something the rules allow for, I do not condone a double standard merely because we have more concrete information available for historical ships than what will show up in a Springsharp.

I have to bow to Shin Ra' argument on this point. I think a properly done 25% refit would be acceptable in this situation.

Any progress?