The Ship Model Forum

Hello everyone, I just wanted to present a preview of the finished late war modernized Lexington kit. Two versions are presented in 1945 configuration, one more historically akin to the older battleships and the other a hypothetical reconstruction.
Alongside the 1941 modernized Lexington kits, all of these will go for sale at some point between the end of July/start of August. We apologize for the long delay, but we had other kits to take care of before this one could be introduced.

_________________
We can have all of the resources in the world and still get it wrong. Not out of any incompetence, it's just because of how difficult it is sometimes to implement a physical feature without having seen it with your own two eyes. - the Chieftain

It's probably too late to make a change but your "cage" mast version has only one main battery director. All American battleships had a second main battery director except for a short period of time for Colorado and Maryland. These two had the aft cage mast cut down and the second main battery director went with the top half of the mast. This was temporary. In both ships, the stump aft cage mast was replaced with a tower like you have in your design but topped with a main battery director not a secondary battery director. I should have said something earlier and I apologize for that.

_________________
"A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for."
- William Shedd

No worries, thank you for pointing it out. There's still time to make small changes like that

_________________
We can have all of the resources in the world and still get it wrong. Not out of any incompetence, it's just because of how difficult it is sometimes to implement a physical feature without having seen it with your own two eyes. - the Chieftain

The latest version of the most modernized Lex looks great with one minor suggestion. All the USN's fast battleships kept the top of the somewhat oval armored conning tower (forgot the correct name for it but it is located just aft, and just above, of the B turret) free. There are viewing scopes that stick out of the top. Yes, the modernized old battleships did see quad 40 mm or other AA guns on top. But the Lex appears to have room on top of the B turret for a quad 40. And it appears a quad 40 would not block the needed view. Suggest moving the quad 40 to the turret top. Again, the changes look great and should give the buyers more options for little extra cost.

Von Fricke, it appears that none of the old battleships(OBB) had quad 40mm gun mounts on the turret tops.

@Von Fricke, as FFG-7 said, none of the old standards were ever fitted with 40 mm on the turret tops. The newer fast battleships had enough room with the triples to fit a Bofors on, but these are twin 16'', so it would be a tight fit.
I can see the issue with the various periscopes etc. sticking out of the conning tower, but it's been done before on ships like WeeVee so I thought it made a certain amount of sense. I guess they would've found a workaround for that

_________________
We can have all of the resources in the world and still get it wrong. Not out of any incompetence, it's just because of how difficult it is sometimes to implement a physical feature without having seen it with your own two eyes. - the Chieftain

I would have done both forward & aft superstructures to that of the modernized Tennessee class & West Virginia. if that Lex was rebuilt at same time as the other 3 ships then why have 2 different styles when there would only be 1 & mass productions savings at that.

Well I took inspiration from California and liberally interpreted the rest. After all it's a different design, much longer, that can accommodate additional stuff than the cramped rebuilt standards, so the general gist of it is there, but I don't think they would've gone for a 1:1 copy. But there's no way to tell definitively one way or the other, is there?

_________________
We can have all of the resources in the world and still get it wrong. Not out of any incompetence, it's just because of how difficult it is sometimes to implement a physical feature without having seen it with your own two eyes. - the Chieftain

would have still kept the 2 smoke stacks but with the tops angled like the other 3 modernized ships.
can you do a 2D side profile of the modernized Lex with the forward superstructure the same as the other 3 ships with the 2 raked funnel tops as that current forward main fire director does not look right because of shape in that location?
I figured 2d might be easier for quick info before doing a 3d tho is up to you. or do a 3d of just the area between the main turrets 2 & 3 without doing the whole ship.

I am looking at this and thinking that she can take more twin 5in turrets mid section.

She can also have a one massive wide funnel in the middle like the carrier had, but that would make the whole thing very wild lookin.

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

Yeees Personally I would've put more on, but I thought it would not be particularly on point (though maybe one additional more would not have hurt), nor very historically accurate.
Back in the day I had built another, completely different version of a modernized Lexington, which had EIGHT of the blasted things per side! Not very historically accurate, but it was a fun build

It was supposed to be a 1/700 piece, but so far isn't available anymore (yet, because Shapeways things - I had a shop there until last year, after than I preferred to lean more towards companies like 3D-Wild and Kraken and TenTwenty3D).

_________________
We can have all of the resources in the world and still get it wrong. Not out of any incompetence, it's just because of how difficult it is sometimes to implement a physical feature without having seen it with your own two eyes. - the Chieftain

I dont think it is impossible. How many tubs Yamato had in 45? Exactly. So I dunno, may be more 5in twins will build up the mid section nicely. That model you have looks somehow very coherent I really like the superstructures there even more. Thats the New Mexico style, which I like very much over other standards.

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

Twelve 12.7 cm Type 89 (5'') guns (6 aside) in a double ladder configuration (three on deck, three one level above). But that's on a much wider and larger ship, albeit there's space in terms of length should one decide to put more 5''/38s on a Lexington, for at least 5-6 mounts per side.

I might take you up on that, maybe at some point I'll make this old one available again, I do quite like the NM style myself.

_________________
We can have all of the resources in the world and still get it wrong. Not out of any incompetence, it's just because of how difficult it is sometimes to implement a physical feature without having seen it with your own two eyes. - the Chieftain

5 5" gun mounts per side like on the fast battleships, 3 on the upper deck & 2 on the superstructure deck. would all have good firing arcs wereas 6 mounts won't.

Your 8 per side 5" DP version has a Quad 40 on top of the B turret. You previously said the turret top was not large enough to handle a Quad 40.

Agree the 8 per side would be a fun crazy build...........but not really practical. Plus no ships boats. Nice funnels.

As I mentioned, this was made years ago and I did not know better, plus I used the wrong turrets there. None of the Colorado class units, which had these squared 16'' turrets, had any 40 mm fitted on the turret tops, only four 20 mm Oerlikons (in two pairs), like what you can see on the final modernized Lexington.


Not practical at all, but imagine having basically half an Atlanta strapped to each side of the ship Now that's a different level of long range AA.

_________________
We can have all of the resources in the world and still get it wrong. Not out of any incompetence, it's just because of how difficult it is sometimes to implement a physical feature without having seen it with your own two eyes. - the Chieftain

For the rebuilt what if version, I would really go in favour of more aesthetically pleasing solutions that are in line with the rebuilds, and not anchor so much to what was done to the standards in all aspects.

Hull? Yes, like standards, I like the fattening. Do you want to sheer the bow a bit upward? Why not!
Turrets? Yes we leave them as is sure. Just slap more floats on sides.
5in twins, 5 per side, or even 6 (if thats not an overkill, would be better than 4 per side.

Funnels? Now this is where it gets interesting. I dont love the look of those you have, they are too spaced out. I would move them closer. Think of what was done on Renown - when rebuilt, they really made an already good looking warship into even nicer one. Id really put teh funnels closer together, perhaps even both to the center, like on Renown. You can have boats in between, or platforms.

Superstructure - I dont love the pyramids they seem a little cartoonish. But even more so, I am not a fant of the funnel merge like the Italians had on their cruisers where funnel gets blended in. The funnel spacing you have is also reminding of Italian designs, not sure if its good or bad.

So, I would use the Renown as an inspiration in the way you build Battlecruiser into a modern fit, but adjusted for the solutions that the Americans had available to them. I think Renown had many changes - the big superstrucure, new funnels, suggesting better engines and so on.

Lets build a beautiful warship, USN had those. The Standards were always very stubby and some like that, but Lexington is a long hull, go Iowa on it, make it look nice.

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

I see your point about not necessarily sticking to historical accuracy here, but, and not to sound too pedantic here, the Iowas also had a polygonal/pyramidal tower structure, with the first funnel partially integrated, and a very similar layout, albeit more spaced out. Because, in the end, that's the USN's solution to the bridge tower problem after the cage and then the tripod masts, from the fast battleships to the rebuilt ones to the Alaska class.

Funny that you mentioned the funnels. I also thought they could be moved closer together, so I did - not drastically so, but they're closer than in the original configuration. I left the spacing there to fit the secondary director in the middle plus some AA guns on platforms. Could they be moved closer still? Yes, I just don't see much point in it right now.

I thought about putting a fifth 5'' mount on the sides, but looking at it, I have problems with the mount's firing angles, be it on main deck or deck 01 level. Having three mounts on the upper tier would mean move the two at the extremities up and the current superfiring ones down a level to keep the up and down pattern of the fast battleships, but doing that would mean dropping at least two 40 mm mounts each side simply due to space considerations. And they would still have some issues with firing angles. While there is scope for a fifth mount, I don't see it happening without yet another radical redesign and departure from the current look.

And just for the sake of it, I've placed some life rafts around the ship as I saw fit, but it's not something that's supposed to be set in stone. If a modeller wants to move them around he can certainly do so at his own benefit, there's plenty enough in the box to carpet a good part of the ship.

I can see the Renown comparison, though it should not be a direct one in my opinion due to differing circumstances and doctrines in operating and upgrading capital ships of this kind. I personally don't mind the overall final look, I can see why you think the director towers look kinda cartoonish in their shape, but I quite dig the look of the rebuilt standards. They do look squat and mean, very business like, maybe that's why I like them so much. Who's to say who's wrong or right.

Personally, I feel like no matter how many tweaks we do on this one, we're never going to make everyone happy. Unlike an actually built warship, there's always some leeway here and there and adjusting to someone's personal preferences, so I would like to say: here I present my own take on the topic, and anyone who would be interested in purchasing one can always put his own touches on it as he sees fit.
I'm sorry I couldn't provide you with a more satisfying model this time around, but we could be here all day arguing about what would make an 'aesthetically pleasing' modernized Lexington, and while I do enjoy chatting about these things, I would also like to move other future releases along. We've got two particular ones right now that are in need of much work, but we are certain they will be extremely popular and the community will greatly enjoy.

_________________
We can have all of the resources in the world and still get it wrong. Not out of any incompetence, it's just because of how difficult it is sometimes to implement a physical feature without having seen it with your own two eyes. - the Chieftain

No need to apologies at all! And silly me of course - funnels are moved on the modern fit, thats nice. Nothing to say. Stick with the layout. So you were ahead of me there and I didnt even pay attention. I think now with the older fit next to it - the difference is for the better.

On pyramid tis a very hard one to put into words.
Iowa has one a the rear similar to youurs, but forward one is steeper, and seemingly narrower (visually) when looking at it head on, or just because it starts way lower and continues it tapers up differently. I think the fact that they are not the same is nice on them. When they are identical it is less visually interesting perhaps. They probably just look uncomfortable to my eyes because they are the same, just one lower than the other (thats nice though the height difference). Iowa somehow has them better integrated. PLus having funnel caps makes a big difference visually I suppose.

Having said that, I think this is still a very satisfying model, and looking very much forward to the release!

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

any clues on what those 2 might be?