The Ship Model Forum

[quote="PHILIPPE"]Out of that subject, is there any real hope you will issue in the coming months the initial version of Lexington with its fantastic collection of funnels? that would really be a MUST ![/quote]
Maybe not in the immediate future because we already have a lineup ready at least until October, but it is on my to do list for early 2026 if we cannot fit it into the 2025 schedule. No worries, we haven't forgot about it! Just lots of things to do :)

Out of that subject, is there any real hope you will issue in the coming months the initial version of Lexington with its fantastic collection of funnels? that would really be a MUST !

[quote="FFG-7"]do the 2nd funnel cap as a separate piece not printed as part of that funnel as none of the ships whether a battleship or cruiser built before the North Carolina class, Cleveland class or Baltimore class had that cap even during the war.[/quote]
Will do. Great suggestion

do the 2nd funnel cap as a separate piece not printed as part of that funnel as none of the ships whether a battleship or cruiser built before the North Carolina class, Cleveland class or Baltimore class had that cap even during the war.

So, this is most likely going to be the final iteration of this model. The casemate deck will undergo a few changes later to improve the 5'' mounts' angles of fire, but aside from that, it is basically what it's going to look like once finished:
[attachment=1]Lexington1944b.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=0]Lexington1944c.jpg[/attachment]

look at the link I posted above & go thru the different standards during the war & you should see what I am talking about.

Really? I thought they only kept the 5/51s. But now that I think of it the problem of keeping them is that it would need the original casemate deck while putting on the 5''/38s would need to modify that part heavily to make space for them to swing around.

New Mexico, Mississippi, Colorado & Maryland had the 5" 25cal aa guns till end of war except Maryland got her twin barrel 5" gun mounts in summer of 1945. I think all those ships still had some of the 5" 51cal guns til end of war except for Maryland.
http://www.navsource.net/archives/01/04bbidx.htm

I was thinking all 5''/38, be them either singles or twins. 5''/25s are already present on the 1941 model plus they're quite anachronistic for 1945. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there was any frontline battleship still armed with them in '44/'45.
I was thinking more 5''/38 singles ala Idaho, substituting 1 for 1 the twins if they so wish.

on the single 5", 25cal or 38cal? on the twin barrel 5" gun mounts, do that to a modernized Lexington so that a person can see the extreme difference between non-modernized & modernized in shape of hull, armament & superstructure(s).

[quote="BB62vet"]I don't intend to get into the fracus re. this topic, but only to say that your latest rendition seems to me to be more in line with what could possibly have been a modernized, late war version of this class. The bridge & after director house, etc. are esp. in keeping with the later STD BB configurations and the addition of the after stack cap completes the overall "look" IMHO.[/quote]
Thanks Hank, appreciate your thoughts! I'm sure you'll be curious to see the reconstructed version modelled after WeeVee after this one.. ;)

[quote="FFG-7"]ModelFunShipyard, yes except that the Maryland did not get the twin barrel 5" gun mounts till summer 1945.[/quote]
Well no big deal, I think it'd make more sense to include them even if it's a Lexington '45 and not '44 just because they're so iconic. Perhaps give the choice between single and twin mounts.

ModelFunShipyard, yes except that the Maryland did not get the twin barrel 5" gun mounts till summer 1945.

MFSYD,

I don't intend to get into the fracus re. this topic, but only to say that your latest rendition seems to me to be more in line with what could possibly have been a modernized, late war version of this class. The bridge & after director house, etc. are esp. in keeping with the later STD BB configurations and the addition of the after stack cap completes the overall "look" IMHO.

It is, after all, a "what-if" and your interpretation looks quite feasable - full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes!!!! :heh:

[quote="FFG-7"]except for the modernized Tennessee class & West Virginia, none of the standards had their superstructure deck extended over the tops of the blisters, maybe to the hull edge.[/quote]
You think this should be changed? Made more like that on Maryland with some smaller AA guns on the upper deck and all the 5'' guns on the same level above it?

except for the modernized Tennessee class & West Virginia, none of the standards had their superstructure deck extended over the tops of the blisters, maybe to the hull edge.
another reason for Hood's wet quarter deck was her weight which caused her armor belt to be submerged.

This is how the model looks with the 1941 torpedo bulges. I've also rearranged the AA guns (don't mind if they clip into the casemate deck, that will be taken care of later, for now it's just to test the layout):
[attachment=3]Lexington1944b.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=2]Lexington1944c.jpg[/attachment]
@VonFricke specifically about your comment: I see your argument about the USN 'pulling a Renown' on the Lexingtons, but I have my doubts on that. The USN was strapped for cash (though not as bad as pre-WWI) until the late 1930s, so while there could be the time and scope to modernize the Lexingtons more than the basic upgrades historically done to the standards, it's still going to take the better part of three years for each ship, regardless of how much dock space they take up. And it's not going to be cheap either.
Also during 1941 ships are still being pulled in for partial modernization (if I recall correctly Colorado was in for such one on the East coast in December '41), so adding at least a couple additional capital ships in the form of two battle cruisers is only going to compound the problem. I'm saying adding a couple because redesigning Washington to supposedly fit these in is beyond the scope of this thread, I think there are a few different arguments that could be made to save a couple either by upping tonnage for all powers or ditching something else, but it's unlikely they could have saved more. Three is the most I can see them getting away with in my opinion, with another three of choice for the British and two for the Japanese, thus keeping the ratio.
But beyond that. I did take in some of your feedback regarding updating equipment, I have changed the directors to late war Mk 37s - those for the 40 mm will be installed later and each position will have its own. I just haven't placed them yet because it's just another thing I have to move in case I want to change the AA layout like I did last time.

What I see them be is additional assets for the carrier force early in the war, at a time when the NCs, SoDaks and Iowas still aren't ready yet. That is the most logical use for them assuming they would not be in Pearl.
And that I think would considerably impact their further modernizations going forward: they would have seen very heavy and continuous use from early '42 to at least late '43, high tempo and constant operations. While that raises two arguments, that if they were damaged they would have seen drydocking and further upgrade, or in any case being pulled back for refit and repair and thus seeing further upgrades after such heavy use, it does not guarantee to include extended stays in port to rebuild a good portion of the upper works if not strictly necessary to improve their combat performance. While Renown after '39 is certainly more capable than Renown pre modernization, she saw a fair amount of action against enemy capital ships - the Lexingtons would simply not have had as many changes nor I believe them to be used as such. You rightly remarked their most important trait is their speed, but even after modernization that speed does not grant them the ability to stand in a battle line for any prolonged amount of time against any enemy capital ship that isn't a Kongo - and even then I would not like to take my chances (yes, they're not the only 14'' gunned Japanese ships, but both Fusos and Ises are definitely better armoured than a Lexington and would simply outlast them, even against the bigger guns).
So I believe a convincing argument could be made for these ships to be used as carrier escorts and naval bombardment platforms throughout the Pacific war, and the equipment afforded by the older cage mast fire control (supplemented by radar and more modern secondary equipment) is still good enough for that job. That is also part of the reason why not all surviving standards were modernized to the same extent as the Tenneessees (which didn't receive as much damage as some other ships like West Virginia).

But if we suppose they would have gone down that route, it would have been at some point between 1935 and 1941, and they already had a template to use by that time while the NC design was refined: the rebuilt New Mexicos. So out of curiosity I made this 'Renown take on a Lexington' superimposing NM's superstructure over the original foremast:
[attachment=1]Lexington1944.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=0]Lexington1944a.jpg[/attachment]
I've also added the cap to the second funnel though personally I see it adding nothing to either the efficiency of the design nor the aesthetics of it, but that's neither here nor there, just my opinion.

It's possible the aviation equipment would have been put ashore, but I left it there on account all the standards - even the heavily modernized ones - still had some. I guess for better spotting during shore bombardment, mostly, which is admittedly a very efficient use of a spotter plane.

Lastly, no these ships would definitely not have had the same problem as Hood. The Lexingtons had an entire additional deck all the way along the hull that raised both upper and quarterdeck further away from the waterline. Hood had a very particular issue with wetness that was the result of three factors: the shape of her quarterdeck (arching high at the stern but very low amidships), its position low on the waterline, and the shape of the hull underwater that positioned the peak of the wave she created at high speed around the area where the quarterdeck met the hull break and thus basically giving it a free wash. Plus she mostly operated in the North Atlantic which is a very unforgiving enviroment compared to the Pacific, where the Lexingtons were mostly designed to operate in.

Hopefully that does answer all your points, and I do appreciate hearing your thoughts on the matter, even if we see things differently :)

What a modernized Lexington Battlecruiser would look like?

The USN had to know of both the weakness of battlecruisers and the Royal Navy’s efforts to improve the Renown and the need to do the same with the Hood. The Renown’s upgrade included much more AA guns and better director controls as well as a new superstructure. The Repulse upgrade never happened, as was apparently the Hood’s, due to the start of WWII. But the USA did not go to war between 1938 and December of 1941. So there was time for the USN to upgrade any battlecruisers before we entered WWII.

But there is IMHO a better reason why the USN would have done a US version of the Renown upgrade prior to December 1941.

The USN did not use battleships to escort carriers until the North Carolina Class battleship and the other “fast” battleships became available. The director towers (not the cage masts) and main superstructure, new 5’ gun AA directors, 1.1” (and later 40 mm) directors and twin 5” DP guns were in the design when the North Carolina was laid down or so I remember. I doubt the USN would make the Lexingtons wider and add the twin 5” DP guns and still retain the forward cage mast and old secondary directors.

Further, the Iowa Class had their speed greatly increased to better serve one of their intended roles as carrier escorts. The Lexington Class battlecruiser had a designed speed of 31 knots. Some of that speed would be lost due the increased width (to accommodate improved torpedo defense and the new 5” DP guns) but they would still be a vast improvement over cruisers. They would still be a fast or even faster then the North Carolina’s and South Dakota’s.

Making the Lexington wider would have required dry-docking but the other improvements would not tie up dry-docks much of which was used to fix and or improve damaged British ships. More important, much of the design work had already been done or relatively easy to be modified following that of the North Carolina Class.

I noted the June 18 revised design. It seems their are too many 40mm quads (I believe more per side than the NC’s & SD’s as built) and no related directors for them. The old forward 5” AA director has been replaced but still not enough given what was done with the North Carolinas.

I also wonder about the aft deck proving to be as wet as the Hood’s. The Hood did not carry seaplanes there. In which case would changes be made there? The two single 20mm’s might be untenable. At best maybe twin 40s on larger sponsons but these would need directors and where would the space come from?

Also would 15 years of experience prove that the seaplanes and any related equipment would be too wet to operate? All this is rather speculative and what to do about this is another kettle of fish.

On another matter I note the North Carolina and Iowa class both have two funnels and both have raked funnel caps. So why would an 1938-1940+ upgraded Lexington be any different? How much top weight would that save. Prior to our entry to WWII the USN apparently did not anticipate the numbers of added AA guns and the top weight problems. Plus as this is a never-were why not make her look better?

Just my thoughts.

use the 1941 hull with it's blisters for 1944 version like that of Colorado/Maryland. still do 1944 version like that of West Virginia with the widen hull. can use the 1944 version like that of Colorado/Maryland into a 2 in 1 kit so that it comes with the shielded 5" 25cal gun mounts that was on the Colorado in 1944 or the 1945 Maryland version with the dual barrel 5"38cal gun mounts.

I think that's probably one too many. I'd stick with Maryland '44 and WeeVee '44 for the sake of making something different but not too much, I don't want to make it too similar to the 1941 version either.
Do you think the hull blisters should not be as wide given it is something more austere than the rebuild of the Tennessees?