The Ship Model Forum

Hello fellow modellers,

as already mentioned in the development thread of the historical USS Lexington CC-1 in battle cruiser configuration, this is a sneak peek of the w.i.p. what if, modernized 1941 version of the same ship. Please keep in mind this is an exercise in hypothetical scenarios, so while we wish to keep the spirit of historical accuracy regarding the possible career of such a ship, please give some leeway to a small bit of artistic license. We're not rivet counting what ifs.
Also, ignore small bugs and tweaks to be polished later, like a few missing windows from the aft fire control director and the crude look of the 5''/25 guns, all those bits will be taken care of during finalization of the design.
Having said that, a preview of the model to come:



The last small bit I wanted to add concerned some useful feedback from one of our forum aquaintaces: he had previously pointed out to me that the bulges should be roughly 6 ft wide at the waterline tapering to 4 ft at the top. Unfortunately this was not possible to achieve given the limitations of the historical design, which has a 105 ft 4'' beam: therefore, the bulge depth has been halved to 3 ft at the waterline and 2 ft at the top (on either side). This was done in order not to exceed the Panamax specs, which given the widest point of the original design is roughly at middle height of freeboard, and the sharp tapering of the main belt, gives a maximum width with bulges just short of 108 ft, which is roughly the same of the Iowa class. And they were already a tight squeeze in the canal locks.
Plus, as you can see from the bow shot, the hull tapers inwards further below both the waterline and the armour belt, so the apparent 3 ft width at the waterline is actually increased the deeper the hull gets. And there's the entire space of the original torpedo protection system, which was already more efficient than those fitted on the standard battleships, to take into account. So while not entirely satisfactory, I see this as a compromise solution that would still give a more safe than not degree of protection to the ship.

Any comment on the design, tips and tweaks that could or should be made are appreciated, if you wish to do so Just remember that, while this kit will be commercially available via 3D-Wild later in the year, as well as a late war version of the same ship, nothing is set in stone when talking about what ifs. So I hope you have fun discussing about this one!

Cheers all!

_________________
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

Is the hull of the upgraded ship going to be the original hull plus the blistered sections, or will it be a single casting/print of the blistered hull?

I was liking the idea of the later upgrades, but I sure enjoy the look of the original hull better.

_________________
... Brian

Quite an interesting WI version!! In some respects, quite similar to what I envisioned as a late '30s era modification, albeit with the tri-pod masts. Along those lines and time frame, money would have been spent on new construction, less on major hull changes to older, existing ships (prior to Dec. 7, '41, of course - that changed everything!)

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

The hull will still be the two pieces as the original, because we can't fit a single one piece hull in the printers.

_________________
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

That's true, and that was the line of thinking we followed developing this version. Also, the tripod masts will also be included like in the original kit as an option, if you wish to go down that route!

_________________
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

That's a smart upgrade. Nicely done on placement of the Mk. 19s. Just like the Big Five.

I think that vertical, external ribbing on the splinter shielding would be appropriate.

Sorry, I mean are the blisters physically printed as a single piece with the hull, or is the original hull available with the blister added on?

_________________
... Brian

no tripods during the 1930's as the class is to new & the Pennsylvania class was last to be modernized with tripods.
I would remove the rectangular vents with mushroom vents but not as many to somewhat clear the upper deck. the 2 quad 1.1" gun mounts on the main deck should be moved a bit closer to the catapult to give a greater arc of gun fire compared to were they are now. also remove the midships quad 1.1" gun mounts as capital ships were only getting 4 of those mounts on each ship of that time period.

My thoughts also. Placement of 1.1 tubs & Mk. 44 FC might be a bit different than the prototype, but then again - it's a W.I., not something set in stone!

In some cases, I've already got 3D designed parts that will work for this, although I would purchase the 1.1. mounts in this scale as the Bunker Studio versions are quite well done. The tri-pod mast version seems quite apropos.

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

Sorry, I mean are the blisters physically printed as a single piece with the hull, or is the original hull available with the blister added on?[/quote]
No they're going to be one thing with the hull, the blisters won't be separate pieces. It would have been a problem printing them that way, particularly the thin ends which would have been prone to warping.

_________________
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 won't have tripods as standard. We've added them as an optional feature on the basic design and we're going to do so here as well, but the standard model will still come with cage masts as you see them in the renders.

I will fiddle with the 1.1'' mounts on the quarterdeck to see if the arcs of fire can be improved.

I originally did not put the 1.1'' mounts amidships on, but I later thought they would improve the AA coverage on the broadside compared to just the fore and aft mounts. I am fine with dropping them, particularly given the scarcity of mounts until production really kicked in but that was after the war started, I just thought they would be an improvement in air defences.

_________________
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

Will do. I will definitely add those once I've set the exact placement of all the bits and pieces newly added.

_________________
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

Hey, that's looking sweet!

To keep with the theme, it definitely needs a catapult on top of turret 3, with some cranes to service it added next to the mainmast (similar to the big Five battleships). Maybe provide a small, optional funnel cap for the foreward stack; just a little thing to help direct smoke away from the superstructure? (another feature sometimes seen on the Big Five vessels). Perhaps enlarge the searchlight platform on the mainmast; another common improvement between 1920s and 1941 fit on USN capitol ships.
Oh, and oval liferafts. Lots of them.

So... I'm thinking, maybe on the Lexingtons, the forward turret top paint ought to be in a thick port-starboard stripe, to differentiate from the solid-color battleships and the fore-aft stripes of the lesser cruisers. Or maybe diagonal... that would also look interesting on the tails of their Seagulls and Kingfishers...

- Sean F.

Good suggestions, Sean.

I've tried adding a catapult on top of #3 turret, there simply isn't the space to put one there. The catapult would collide with the mast or excessively overhang in front of the barrels and interfere with their elevation. I know it isn't as historical as it should be, but maybe someone can think of a workaround.

I will take a look at the enlarged searchlight platforms, though to be honest they seem to be in line with other standard battleships of the period to me. I need to look into that in greater detail.

Life rafts will obviously be added, but I leave them for last. You can always find space for some

I hadn't thought about the funnel cap forward! Good suggestion!

My personal opinion is that if these ships ever entered service, they would have formed their own battle squadron, but battle squadron still was. So the visual identification would still have been a painted turret roof, just a different colour. I don't remember off hand all of those that were used aside from blue and red, but certainly adding a single more isn't that much difficult.
Also remember that shapes, like stripes either laid perpendicular or diagonal to the turret (even if still painted on the roof), are much more difficult to discern from several thousand feet in the air while moving much faster than the ship you're looking at. So the fully painted roof, just a different colour, makes much more sense.

_________________
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

Just my personal fantasy. I don't expect or ask that my ideas be included. I had always thought I'd build her as a heavy "Scouting" Cruiser. To that end, a catapult on the fantail and also atop the 3rd turret with cranes alongside the Mainmast, a third Seagull on a cradle. My big change would be a second scouting division (3-4 more seagulls) located between the funnels much like the Northhampton Class cruisers. Move the cranes forward alongside the forward funnels and ships boats stowed alongside the rear funnel and the forward superstructure much like on the Big Five ships. Again, I just wanted to share my fantasy, Love this ship! Wish we had built at least 4 to escort two conversions to carriers. Impractical, but impressive in my mind. I now return this thread to its regular programming.

when attempting to put on a catapult on #3 turret, did you place it parallel to the ship's centerline or angled away from the centerline? can you post a cropped side profile & topview of turret #3 in relation to the aft cagemast to see what the gap distance between the turret & mast is?

Very nice start,

- I would remove the Searchlight towers on the aft stack, most ships moved them all to the mainmast platform.
- All of the .50's are concentrated towards the aft, we should see some up forward ala the Big 5. Some on the fighting top and or forward of the conning tower
- The 1920's style AA directors would have been removed from the forward structure and aft of the second funnel
- Interesting note about the #3 turret not giving room for a catapult, perhaps per our earlier conversation and these being seen potentially as cruisers then 2 deck edge catapults on the fantail could arguably be historically correct.
- The 1.1 placement would most likely be a max of 4 mounts. I would imagine a pair of mountings in the forward superstructure again similar to what the Big 5 were getting. The aft one perhaps adjacent to the mainmast on a similar platform as you have the midship one to fit around the large vents on the boat deck?


Matt

_________________
In the yards right now:
USS Utah AG-16
On Hold
1/350 USS Portland CA-33 1942
1/350 Trumpeter Texas with a twist

Regarding the maintop: Going by the historical trend exemplified by the Big Five, the Lexingtons probably would have ended up with an integrated AA gallery replacing the middle level, rather than the "birdbath" tub on top he way the Nevadas and Pennsylvanias did.

Regarding the capstans and hawse pipes: I learned this after it was too late for me to fix it: The refit in which Maryland and Colorado got their bulges also included the deletion of the center anchor, including the capstan and scrape plates, and a plate being welded over the hawse hole in the deck. The bow notch remained.

Speaking of the hull differences... it could be an option for when a kit is ordered: 1941 version with bulged hull and 1.1 quads (like Maryland), or original unbulged hull with 3"/50 singles (like California).

Regarding the turret 3 catapult:
Like FFG-7 mentioned, they wouldn't be centered; and comparing against the Nevada and Pennsylvania classes, as the turrets get larger they tended to leave less of the catapult hanging over the back - but in all cases, the overhang at the back of the turret just barely clears the mainmast (obviously to minimize how much of the catapult overhangs the gun barrels). Looking at the Big Five in photos, they've got the catapult hanging about halfway out the length of the gun barrels, but mounted quite off-center (even requiring braces off the side of the turret to support it), and canted off to the side to stay just barely clear of the guns elevating. Bit of a rough photo of the California, but shows what I mean pretty well: https://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014432a.jpg
With Lexington's turrets being a bit longer that the TN and CO classes, and with only two guns per turret, it should be even easier to do something similar - unless the mainmast cage is notably closer to the back of the turret. But even then, the longer turret ought to be able to absorb more of that catapult length and thus not need as much overhang toward the mainmast.
Looking at the Lexington renderings, I see an enclosed platform that would definitely be in the way (California, in the photo above, has a similar platform but it's above the catapult. Hers was always that high, but I expect they'd have moved Lexington's up, or deleted/modified it to clear a catapult. But also, these enclosed platforms seem to have all been removed by 1941.) I also see a vertical pipe of some sort between the turret and the mainmast that would even more quickly block the catapult. What is this element, and is it something that could be removed or trunked out of the way? Given the scouting role of a battlecruiser squadron, it's inconceivable the USN wouldn't have crammed two catapults on them somehow, and if it took trunking an incinerator exhaust (if, for example, that's what it is) off to the side I'm sure they would have. And the external rangefinder on the turret roof would have to go, of course (could be move to turret 2. California had one there in 1941, for example.)

- Sean F.

here is WeeVee's main deck that shows the catapult on turret 3.