The Ship Model Forum

Hello everyone,

recently I've picked up the modernized Lexington idea again, after a hiatus due to other commitments. For those wondering when the already announced 1941 version will come out, the plan is to release both versions at once - early and late war era - but for now the late war isn't finished yet. It is, in fact, still very much a WiP. And for that reason, I would like to ask for inputs.

I was not entirely happy with the first draft so I decided to rework it basically from the upper deck up. Compared to the old one, bulges have been widened already (roughly double what you will see in the picture), and the 5'' mounts moved to the edge of the raised portion of the deck over the bulge edge (like some of the refitted standards). The foremast will be kept as a cage mast while the stern portion of the superstructure will be replaced by a more squared one as seen in the rebuilt late war battleships, and all boats will be removed in favour of life rafts. Aircraft facilities with one catapult and one crane will be kept on the fantail.
However other than that I'm not entirely sure how to proceed with things. So far these are the modifications I've pinned down, any suggestion on what kind of visual pattern I should follow? I'm open to suggestions.

The first draft of the model which will be reworked (without the changes I mentioned above, they had not yet been incorporated):

_________________
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

wouldnt the bridge have also been completely rebuilt as well to line up with the other rebuilt BBs?

Depends on which ones. The survivors from Pearl did, but that's because they'd been bombed to the seabed and back, so they were thoroughly reconstructed. If you look at ships that weren't there, like Colorado or Maryland, you will see far less extensive changes to the basic bridge structure and the superstructure in general.

_________________
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

are those 5" gun mounts to scale as that superstructure deck seems crowded with those mounts there? have 4 5" gun mounts per side not 5 as the model currently has. try staggering the 5" gun mounts with 2 on the upper deck & 2 on the superstructure deck per side. how about single barrel 5" gun mounts as was done on the Idaho? is that 40mm gun tubs on either side of #3 14" turret? need more 40mm gun mounts towards the stern. is the superstructure deck the same width as on the standards?

Tomorrow I'll post more pictures with the wider bulge, I have fudged a bit with the AA guns, I believe there's space for 5 5'' mounts either side with the extra width of the 9 ft bulges, and I will add more Bofors.
The superstructure is box standard Lexington (as per original blueprints + a few additions), while the rear one is same width as that found on New Mex.

_________________
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 #3 5" gun mount has a reduced gun arc compared to the #2 & #4 5" gun mounts on both sides. having the gun mounts staggered in height between the upper deck & superstructure deck would give greater firing arc compared to the model's current layout.

Good point.

_________________
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

My first takes:

Funnel cap on both funnels?

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

why both funnels as usually if not always, the #1 funnel only had the cap?

Well, the point of a funnel cap is to deflect smoke away from the crew areas (plus associated important equipment, particularly on the bridge) so there's really no point in adding one to the #2, is it? It would be a waste of (admittedly small) tonnage that could translate into a few more Oerlikons.

_________________
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 was replying to pascalemod as the Booklet of General Plans I have of both battleships & cruisers show that the #1 funnel has the cap & the #2 does not.

I see. Sorry I had missed that, but you have a point, only the #1 funnel should have a cap.

_________________
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

Widened torpedo bulge and rearranged 5'' mounts. Also added new AA guns though some positions will probably be changed:

_________________
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 do understand the look and reasoning behind what you are going for here, and I much appreciate your effort and skill.
Since these are hypothetical, who’s to say one or more of these ships could have been at Pearl and required a major rebuild? Tennessee was not “bombed to the seabed” and yet received the same modifications as California.
My preference would be to see Lexington receive a new superstructure more in line with the Iowa class. Expanded bridge, 5” on multiple levels, and other platforms for 40mm and fire control.

ModelFunShipyard, how wide are the bulges if on real ship?
this is what Barry & I are talking about in regards to the 5" gun mounts.
put splinter shields around the 2 groups of 20mm guns located between #4 main turret & the break of the upper deck to the main deck. put either 2 twin/quad 40mm gun mounts on the main deck close to the hull edge about halfway between end of stern & break to the upper deck.

Don't worry, that's coming too Just wanted to do this one first since it is more in line with the historical development of the late standards not bombed in Pearl, but the idea was to offer both to give the modellers the choice to build what they like.

_________________
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 bulges have been enlarged to 9 ft (I specifically asked for help to Jon Warneke some time ago to get the size correct, and he got back to me with that figure).
I got what you said before about the placement of the 5'' guns, I just thought it looked more interesting this way. Also with that many more additional AA guns wouldn't the extra space afforded by a wider casemate deck help with the extra accommodations?
And don't worry, all AA guns will have splinter shields in the final version. It's just easier to move them around without them until the model doesn't need further changes.
I will take a look if there's space to put Bofors on the fantail (I left some space to add a under the deck hangar like in USN cruisers), but there should be enough to place at least one quad or two twins.

_________________
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

with the bulges I presume 9' wide per side would give the ship a beam of 123' 5" making it to wide to go thru the Panama Canal.
the model's 5" gun mounts current layout interferes with the quad 40mm gun mounts firing arcs which is why to remove the #3 5" mount & lower the 5" mounts #1 & #5 to the upper deck to give back the firing arcs to the 40mm gun mounts.

Correct. But I guess that's not an issue since that's what they did with some of the refitted standards, and in any case the war in the Atlantic from '42 onwards really doesn't need a large capital ship presence, so it's likely they would've voted for keeping these in the Pacific as carrier escorts thanks to their speed, and whatever about the Panamax restrictions. That's my educated guess anyway.

_________________
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 is what I thought but wanted to make certain.
what you are currently doing is a missmash of configurations in that model. when the Tennessee class & the West Virginia were modernized, the hull blisters were widened, everything except for the main turrets were removed & all new superstructures were added with all new 5" twin barrel gun mounts & 40mm/20mm positions.
Maryland got her twin 5" gun mounts to late in the war to use them in action against the Japanese.
I would do 1 model similar to the Colorado of 1944, another rebuilt to that of West Virginia of 1944 & another to the Maryland at the end of the war with the twin barrel 5" gun mounts which would give her a cross appearance of Colorado & West Virginia.