The Ship Model Forum

[quote="FFG-7"]I think they would have still ordered the Iowas as the Lexington class as designed & started to be built were battlecruisers. battlecruisers were to take on other cruisers but not same as was found out at the Battle of Jutland & the British found out when she was firing at what she thought was Prinz Eugen was actually the Bismarck & paid for it. the same as when the Japanese battlecruiser(fast battleship?) Kirishima fought against the battleship Washington & lost.[/quote]
That battle cruisers were designed to hunt other cruisers and only transitioned to the fleet scout role is true, but the thing about Jutland and Bismarck are popular myths that really need to be stopped repeating.
After Dogger Bank in 1914 it was stressed that to remedy the poor gunnery of the Battle Cruiser Fleet rate of fire needed to be increased. Therefore at Jutland they stacked propellant bags everywhere, in the gun turrets, the turntables, some ships going as far as removing their anti flash doors. Does that sound stupid and unsafe? Yes it is. Thanks Beatty.
Does that mean their protection was insufficient? No. HMS Tiger suffered 21 hits in the battle, some of which close or against main armament protection, and survived in fighting shape.
Outliers are present, of course. The first gen (Invincibles & Indefatigables) battle cruisers were really poorly protected (6'' main belt), but that's just six ships spread across the battle cruiser fleet and the battle fleet itself.
Hood was lost because of a particular quirk of hers when running at speed: the trough of the wave in her wake was located roughly abreast of her aft magazines, and when she just started to turn to engage Bismarck closer, she lifted that section slightly out of the water and the shell that detonated her bypassed all protection except a small amount of transverse bulkheads by just going below the main belt. It is a one in a million shot, but there are naval historians about to publish a new article on the topic because all other explanations presented from 1941 so far had had some fault of some kind (mostly, regarding the fact a 38 cm shell, no matter how good Bismarck's guns were, could not have possibly penetrated directly into the magazines by going through either her main belt - which was still 12'' thick -, the upper strake or the armoured deck without being diverted from its original path or begun to be broken up).
Kirishima being lost against Washington is probably the only good example that we can point to of why a battle cruiser (or fast battleship, still she had just an 8'' belt) should not engage a proper battleship, although to be fair to Kirishima they didn't know Washington was there until they bumped into it, otherwise they would have sent something like Nagato.

Even though finalized in 1919, the Lexingtons have the armament and speed of a modern (for the time) vessel, but still the protection of a first generation battle cruiser (7'' of belt against 6'' of HMS Invincible). Even if they would have been uparmoured like Renown and Repulse (9''), that still would have been insufficient for them to sit in the battle line for any length of time. That is why I agree to the fact that the Iowas (maybe just two) still get ordered, because as good as a fast battleship in the sense of the Kongo is (I think both classes are pretty comparable, both started as battle cruisers and both would end up needing uparmouring due to insufficient protection), it still is not good enough to stand up to proper battleship guns (unless they're facing the Scharnhorsts).

Sorry for the long rant, the British battle cruisers are a cherished (and a bit touchy) subject to me, so I just wanted to address the point.

I think they would have still ordered the Iowas as the Lexington class as designed & started to be built were battlecruisers. battlecruisers were to take on other cruisers but not same as was found out at the Battle of Jutland & the British found out when she was firing at what she thought was Prinz Eugen was actually the Bismarck & paid for it. the same as when the Japanese battlecruiser(fast battleship?) Kirishima fought against the battleship Washington & lost.

Possibly. I definitely think a couple of Montanas would have been ordered, as well as two or more Iowas, just in case. I don't think they would go with either only one or the other.

Considering that the Iowas were considered an aberration when they were designed and built, I'd say that if there were Lexingtons available, the General Board would have opted for the Montanas rather than the Iowas. By 1944, any surviving CC would have been, as you put it, "carpeted" with Bofors and Oerlikons.

[quote="Dan K"]Not to hijack this thread but, given these potential modernizations, it occurs to me that had all six ships been built, and events unfolded much as they did historically, the Alaskas probably would never have been called for, much less built. Maybe fewer Iowas as well.

Just musing out loud.[/quote]
Yeah that's totally possible. I don't see much use for the Alaskas if all six (or even four + 2 carriers, minus Lexington which would have been sunk historically in 1942) are around late war. Perhaps we'll see four Iowas instead of six and perhaps, instead of going with all six, maybe the first two or four would be laid down and then a couple of Montanas would have been ordered. Just to increase battle line firepower since the need for speed (hehe) is not a priority as badly needed as without the Lexes.

[quote="FFG-7"]the Tennessee class & West Virginia when rebuilt after the attack were the only US battleships that could not go thru the Panama canal but had to go the long way around. they were about 114' wide.
BB-43 USS Tennessee Booklet of General Plans (1945) https://archive.org/details/bb43bogp1945
BB-44 USS California Booklet of General Plans (1953) https://archive.org/details/bb44bogp1953
BB-44 USS California Technical Drawings (1943) https://archive.org/details/bb44ga1943
BB-48 USS West Virginia Booklet of General Plans (1944) https://archive.org/details/bb48bogp1944
BB-48 USS West Virginia Technical Drawings (1943) https://archive.org/details/bb48ga1943[/quote]
Then it's beside the point. The two are not the same model. The 1944/45 version with partial modernization (the one that's got the NM superstructure at the back) will not have widened bulges, but we need to find a better arrangement for the 5''/38s. Probably removing the 40mm gun tubs in front of the rearmost 5'' mount.
The bulges themselves on that one are already 108', just 2'' shy of the Iowa. So that's probably the upper limit we can reach with those.

The reconstructed one I showed two pictures of last is entirely another thing, it will be a further separate, and not the subject of discussion at present. That [i]will [/i] have widened bulges whenever I get around at completing it.

Not to hijack this thread but, given these potential modernizations, it occurs to me that had all six ships been built, and events unfolded much as they did historically, the Alaskas probably would never have been called for, much less built. Maybe fewer Iowas as well.

Just musing out loud.

the Tennessee class & West Virginia when rebuilt after the attack were the only US battleships that could not go thru the Panama canal but had to go the long way around. they were about 114' wide.
BB-43 USS Tennessee Booklet of General Plans (1945) https://archive.org/details/bb43bogp1945
BB-44 USS California Booklet of General Plans (1953) https://archive.org/details/bb44bogp1953
BB-44 USS California Technical Drawings (1943) https://archive.org/details/bb44ga1943
BB-48 USS West Virginia Booklet of General Plans (1944) https://archive.org/details/bb48bogp1944
BB-48 USS West Virginia Technical Drawings (1943) https://archive.org/details/bb48ga1943

Were the widened bulges applied to all refitted ships as war went on or just on the reconstructed vessels from Pearl? Because that would make them non Panamax compliant. I know that's just a paper issue here but I feel it needs to be taken into consideration.

when you widen the bulges, then re-layout the 5" gun mounts.
there is a problem using that aft New Mexico superstructure & it is what is right in front of it that is the problem.

I should indeed widen the bulges.

The rear superstructure tower of the first two versions is taken straight from NM, but it needs adjusting to things like the 40 mm tubs that extend to the sides.

what New Mexico superstructure?
no extended bulges like the reconstructed Tennessee/West Virginia?

[quote="BB62vet"]The item in question looks to be the std. U.S.N. 12' Rangefinder - but I've not been able to find any info on the Mark or Mod of that equipment. It would have been used primarily for directing the 5" AA batteries.

Hope this is helpful![/quote]
Thank you, it confirms what I already suspected. It is good enough to tag it as 12' rangefinder and not just 'generic AA battery rangefinder' ;)

MFSYD -

The item in question looks to be the std. U.S.N. 12' Rangefinder - but I've not been able to find any info on the Mark or Mod of that equipment. It would have been used primarily for directing the 5" AA batteries.

Hope this is helpful!

Hank

Hello fellow modellers,

first pictures for public review of the 1944 Lexington. Two slightly different arrangements for the 5''/38s were tried:
[attachment=6]Lexington1944d.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=5]Lexington1944e.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=4]Lexington1944f.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=3]Lexington1944g.jpg[/attachment]
I just copy pasted the New Mexico superstructure I already had, it needs some filing and adjusting to properly fit; also I'm still not 100% convinced about the 40 mm mounts, I may move them around later. The radar systems also needs some updating.
Also, can anyone tell what Mark the fire director highlighted in blue below is? There's the Mk 19 and then a second one, I assume for AA work or as backup, the arrangement and both directors are taken straight from WV '41:
[attachment=0]Constellation6a.jpg[/attachment]

And a sneak peek for my own version of the reconstructed Lexington Tennessee/West Virginia style:
[attachment=2]Lexington1945b.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=1]Lexington1945c.jpg[/attachment]

[quote="ModelFunShipyard"][quote="Barry_Tomlinson"]Maryland did acquire twin 5"/38 in August of '45 without further widening of the hull. The shelter deck (Hope I'm naming that correctly?) was modified to accomodate.[/quote]
So we need to decide whether to make this a 1944 version with still singles or 1945 with twin 5''/38s.

Also updated previous comment about 6'' battery.[/quote]

As the Lexington BC had a top speed allowing them to keep up with the fast Carriers, I could only imagine them becoming primarily AA escort platforms late in the war and being equipped with 8 - 10 dual 5"/38 mounts along with as many quad 40mm mounts as possible.
I just can't see installing the less effective, single 5"/25s in 1944 on these ships.
I believe the 6" mounts would all be landed.

considering that class was the only 1 that had 6" guns for secondary armament for that time period, I would remove them & redo the superstructure deck to take those twin 5" gun mounts like Nevada, Pennsylvania & later Maryland.

[quote="Barry_Tomlinson"]Maryland did acquire twin 5"/38 in August of '45 without further widening of the hull. The shelter deck (Hope I'm naming that correctly?) was modified to accomodate.[/quote]
So we need to decide whether to make this a 1944 version with still singles or 1945 with twin 5''/38s.

Also updated previous comment about 6'' battery.

Maryland did acquire twin 5"/38 in August of '45 without further widening of the hull. The shelter deck (Hope I'm naming that correctly?) was modified to accomodate. Pictures are from Navsource.

It has to do with the space on deck between the edge of the casemates and the houses at the base of the funnels. To be clear, I haven't checked, but I don't think there's the space to fit 5''/38 twins up there.
The reference to the 1944 Maryland was how this ship could have been modified going into 1944, so I took Colorado and Maryland as examples. Both had their 5''/25s refitted with shields, a remodelled rear superstructure and lots of Bofors and Oerlikons slapped on deck, but nothing really major. They even retained the forward cage masts. So far that's what I'm planning to do with Lexington 1944, as well as updating the fire control directors. Or am I missing something else?
Aside from deciding to swap the 5''/25s for 5''/38s (be they singles or twins), I am also unsure whether to retain the secondary 6'' battery. If we go all in with the twin 5''/38s, then they should probably be removed to save weight. I don't see much of a point in retaining them either way, but given the historical battleships kept their original secondary battery, even though they were still 5'' guns and didn't have dual purpose capabilities due to limited elevation because of the casemate mounting, I was unsure what to do with the 6''s.