Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'lexington'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 10 results

  1. The title is pretty self explanatory. After grinding down the American cv line from Langley I have finally aquired the Blue Ghost. I have upgraded the bombers and have a 4 point captain now along with researching the torpedo bombers, my question is what planes should I spec or should I follow jack of all trades that American carriers, what captain skills and ship upgrades should I get, and are there any need to know tips on lex that I didn’t learn on ranger.
  2. Lexington-class battlecruiser I think this would be a very exciting option for a tier V-VII American Battleship. Here is a little info about it. Final Design SpecificationsDisplacement: 44,638 tons full load; 51,217 tons emergency full loadDimensions: 874 x 105 x 31 feet/266.5 x 32.1 x 9.5 metersPropulsion: Turbo-electric, 16 295 psi boilers, 4 shafts, 180,000 shp, 33.25 knotsCrew: 1297 (1326 as flagship)Armor: 7 inch belt, 1.5-1.75 inch deck, 5-9 inch barbettes, 5-11 inch turrets, 6-12 inch CTArmament: 4 dual 16"/50cal, 16 single 6"/53cal, 4 single 3"/50cal AA, 4 21 inch torpedo tubes (above water), 4 21 inch torpedo tubes (submerged) Concept/Program: A group of six large battlecruisers ordered in 1916 as fast "battle scouts", part of a large program of fleet scouting ships, which included many smaller cruisers and destroyers. These ships were essentially scaled up from contemporary cruiser designs, rather than scaled down from battleship designs, as was typical foreign practice. The ships would have been large and powerful, but poorly protected and thus vulnerable in battle. By 1921 the weaknesses of the design, and of the type in general, were apparently recognized, and consideration was given to either converting some of the ships to aircraft carriers or building new carriers using materials assembled for the battlecruisers. Ultimately all six were cancelled under the Washington Treaty, and two were completed as carriers. Class: Sometimes identified as the Constellation class, apparently because Constellation (CC 2) was the first to be laid down. These were the only US Navy ships to which the battlecruiser classification was applied. The designation "CC", which was not formally applied until the 17 July 1920 fleet redesignation, is thought to have been derived from "Cruiser, Capital", indicating their status as capital ships. Design: The original (1916) design for these ships was quite different from their final design. In 1916 the planned specifications were: 36,350 tons full load with 10 14"/50cal and 18 5"/51cal guns, very light armor, half of the 24 boilers located above the protective deck, and seven funnels. The entire program was suspended in 1917 to facilitate construction of merchant ships for WWI service. The class was completely redesigned 1917-1919, taking into account improved technology such as watertube boilers, foreign development of more powerful ships, the need for improved armor and anti-torpedo protection, and the lessons of Jutland. The resulting design was considerably better than the original version, but still relatively lightly armored. Why should the Lexington Battlecruiser be in the game as a regular ship and what historical and game play benefits does it add? The Lexington was meant to be part of the greatest battle fleet that never existed. This battle fleet was to consist of 6 ships of the South Dakota’s class with 4 triple mount 16.5” guns, 4 ships of the Colorado Class with 16” guns, 6 ships of the Lexington Class battle cruiser with 4 triple mount 14” guns, followed up by another nine battle ships from the Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and California classes with 14” guns. This Battle fleet would have been superior to any single battle fleet in the world, including the one ran by the Royal Navy. This fleet was never built due to the limitations of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty that put a limit on the total tonnage of the Battle Fleets for the US Britain Japan, France and Italy. For the British this treaty was about not being out paced by the economic and industrial might of the US and it’s planned battle fleet it was building, for the US it was about limiting the size of the Japanese fleet to a manageable level to maintain control of the pacific. Given the fact that these ships were never able to be built how cool would it be to be able to play what could have been. The Lexington was not just a paper ship it was actually on order and partially built when it and its sister ship were converted to aircraft carriers the Lexington and Saratoga which went on to play significate roles in WWII. Another important factor for the Lexington being added is the many design changes and the different upgrades that can be associated with the ship class. “Like the South Dakota-class battleships also included in the 1916 Act, their construction was repeatedly postponed in favor of escort ships and anti-submarine vessels. During these delays, the class was redesigned several times; they were originally designed to mount ten 14-inch guns and eighteen five-inch guns on a hull with a maximum speed of 35 knots (65 km/h; 40 mph), but by the time of the definitive design, these specifications had been altered to eight 16-inch guns and sixteen six-inch guns, with a speed of 33.25 knots (61.58 km/h; 38.26 mph) to improve hitting power and armor (the decrease in speed was mostly attributed to the additions of armor).” Here Are just a Few of the Different looks from the redesigns With the level of design and redesign the sheer amount of historical documentation on this ships class would be massive, which could support the high level of historical accuracy of any WG recreation. The Lexington was order as a direct response to the Japanese Kongo Battle cruiser (which may be in the game). The design of the Lexington was heavily based on and an improvement of Britain Invincible class battle cruiser, which will most likely be added to the Britain line. Hopefully if we can get enough people interested in the Lexington Battlecruiser War Gaming seriously considering add this amazing ship.
  3. Thanks in large part to @Shrayes_Bhagavatula and his recent (And frankly well done) German BB split proposal, I have been thinking about Battlecruisers once again and how such lines or line splits would shape up in the game. In particular, Sharayes' 'Raider Line' of German Battleships, at least IMO, would potentially pair well with earlier, true BC's to create not just a split but a true 2nd line of battleships to unlock for Germany. His top tier conclusions meant that one would only need to backfill down to tier III in order to complete a line, and since there are more than enough ship classes from the era to do so, a BC-->fast/ commerce raiding BB line suddenly becomes very attainable... at least in theory of course. But today, I'd like to start my suggestion with a different nation to backfill BCs with; the US. As we know, there will be an imminent split at tier 8 for the USN Battleship tree, and like many of you I was shocked and a bit disappointed when the ships were announced and shown off a few months ago. "This isn't at all what I wanted!" I exclaimed! "Where's the Nevada, the Tennessee, the real SoDak? Where's our awesome secondary focused, brawling BBs!?!?" Instead what we got was the original South Dakota, a rebuilt, pretend-to-be-a-Montana South Dakota, and one of the freakin' Tillman proposals! Not to say that such ships didn't have their fans prior to the announcement, they most certainly did! Even I'll freely admit I was hoping to see the OG SoDak come into the game at some point as a premium or, something. However, as I calmed down and started to think about it more, it's actually kind of brilliant on WG's part. We have always had a very nice, well put together tech line for the US BBs from a chronological standpoint. Starting from the first Dreadnought, to the standards, to the post 1930 era Fast BBs all the way up to the aborted Montana, it's a very well defined line! And now, we're going to be given a choice: what was versus what might have been. The simple fact is that the 1920 South Dakota-class was the next in line to be built after the Colorado-class and very nearly were, if not for that contemptable piece of paper known as the Washington Naval Treaty. Now, say what you will about the new ships, and they very well could end up being crap as many of the doomsayers are proclaiming, but there's no denial that these new "Super Standards" as I call them, will not only create a more interesting chronological line but also a more significant gameplay choice: continue with the slow, methodical playstyle of the standards or go with fast, maneuverable BBs? And therein lies the brilliance... So if you made it this far, congratulations! If you're looking for the TL:DR well here's your question: 'What the hell does all that have to do with American Battlecrusiers TW?' So glad you asked! Despite the fact that the USN fast BBs make chronological sense in the techline, it got me thinking; can it be extended and make sense gameplay wise? This is where the BC's come in. Since we already have existing tier VIII-X ships, we simply need to backfill the rest of the line as far as it can go. And how far does the BC line for the US go? Lets theorycraft! Starting off at tier VII, we have the most obvious ship to place in our hypothetical American BC line: The Lexington-class: As we all know, the Lexington and Saratoga were rebuilt as CV's so I would go with the name Constellation for this class in the techline. The main feature of these ships are that they are basically the ultimate glass cannons. Roughly the same size and maneuverability as HMS Hood (though slightly faster), Connie would also feature similar armament to Colorado, with 8x2 16" guns though these are the 50cal versions that were also to be used on the original SoDaks (nee: Kansas) Her main drawback is that this thing, other than being huge has only 7"(!) of main belt armor. That's only slightly better than a Baltimore and compared to Hood is equivalent to only her upper belt, whereas her main belt is 12". So yeah, you want to talk about easy broadside citadels, Russian BBs eat your hearts out! And it's this frankly jarring achilles heel that have some saying is the reason the Connie will never show up in the game, she's simply to fragile to to balance properly. But I argue she could be balanced, especially given a hypothetical refit that WG would certainly give her anyway, could make her perfectly competitive at tier VII, playing more like... a long range heavy cruiser rather than a true BB. Now at this point, many people would say "yeah, that'll work. Branch her off from the New Mexico and call it a day!" But Wait! we can still go further down the line! Just like a archeological expedition, we just need to dig a little deeper and get to tier VI where we find: Welcome to the original Lexington-class designs. The drawings you see above are the ships as they had been designed by 1916, only for the design parameters to change the following year into the ships that actually got laid down in 1920. Instead of 8x2 16" guns she was to be fitted with 10 14"/50 guns in a superfiring arrangement of 3 over 2, like the Pensacola-class CA. And just like her contemporary at tier VI, her armor is devastatingly thin at only 5" at the belt. Let me repeat that: FIVE. INCHES. It's the same armor thickness as the New Orleans at tier VII, in a ship four times it's size. Now, this does mean that she has an insane top speed of 35(!) knots, but even so. This is a ship of yuuuuge extremes. And just like her big sister a tier higher would likely mean the ship wouldn't play like a BB at all, more like a giant CA with 20% less firepower than the New Mexico. Oh gods I hear you say, make it stop! Surely there can't be more! Oh but there is... digging a little deeper still, we find: This ship was the culmination of a design study that had begun around 1911-12 in response to the IJN Kongo and in many ways was exactly that, an American rebuttal design meant to offer similar capabilities. And as you can see, this ship is rather... reasonable in design when compared to the insanity that becomes the Lexington-class project. Main armament was only 8x2 14" guns, these likely would have been the 45cal ones since they were just coming online at the time, so again about 20% less firepower than it's contemporary BB at tier V, the New York-class. They also feature... reasonable-ish armor protection as well, with a 10" armor belt as seen above. Overall, this ship is entirely sensible compared to what comes next. But is there anything that comes before? Can we go even deeper? Yes, yes we can. This drawing is based on a series of general requirements that had been drawn up by the Naval Design Bureau from about 1909 to design a battlecruiser, using the Wyoming-class as a base. 6 different design sketches were submitted and the end result was what you see above. Congress was never interested in authorizing any money to the Navy to build such ships, only changing their tune when the Kongo-class was revealed to the world. The main armament would be the same 12"/50 guns as on the Wyomings for those wondering. At this point we've pretty much hit rock bottom. I could continue this even further with Armored Cruisers, which were the true precursors to the battlecruiser but as there are no AC's in WoWs yet, that's a story that'll have to wait for another time. Hopefully soon... ;) Congratulations! You made it through the entire rant! I hope you found this interesting and as always, I welcome your feedback and suggestions!
  4. Here’s a fun little thing my friend and I made today using the new 30” Lexington CC model I had made for me. It’s a port ship profile picture of what Lexington might look like if she were a tier VII battleship, or battle cruiser in reality. The Lady Lex herself in all her glory as she might have been had she’d been completed as a CC, battlecruiser, instead of a CV, aircraft carrier. If you’re interested in seeing this gallant beauty in game, check out this article I wrote a while back. Also, include below is another piece about the Lexington CC model I had built. Check them out and have a great day!
  5. Well, the model has arrived and the photos are in from SD Model Makers. She is 30” long, so just under 1:350 scale. Something like 1:34896 or whatever. For those of you who don’t know, the Lexington -class aircraft carrier, or CV, was originally supposed to be a battlecruiser, or CC. The model is is being built in a configuration that suggests what she might have looked like as a CC in USN service in early 1941. ARMAMENT: x8 16”/50 main guns. x10 6”/53 secondary guns. x10 5”/25 heavy AA guns. x6 1.1”/75 “Chicago Piano” medium AA guns. x19 Water cooled M2 .50 caliber BMG light AA guns. Enjoy! P.S. This is an article I made a while back about having this ship added into WoWS. Check it out if you like the Lady Lex.
  6. Well, the preliminary photos are in from SD Model Makers. Some additions and alterations still need to be done, but she is coming along nicely. She is 30” long, so just under 1:350 scale. Something like 1:34896 or whatever. For those of you who don’t know, the Lexington -class aircraft carrier, or CV, was originally supposed to be a battlecruiser, or CC. The model is is being built in a configuration that suggests what she might have looked like as a CC in USN service in early 1941. ARMAMENT: x8 16”/50 main guns. x10 6”/53 secondary guns. x10 5”/25 heavy AA guns. x6 1.1”/75 “Chicago Piano” medium AA guns. x19 Water cooled M2 .50 caliber BMG light AA guns. Enjoy!
  7. Thats_JasonBourne1

    Advice on Lexington

    Just bought lex yesterday. Does the default plane really that easy to shred ?
  8. So, I'm currently in the process of free XP-ing the upgrades on the Lexington before I sell my Ranger and buy it, but I've come across a little bit of a dilemma. With the rocket planes, I have a choice between the regular HVAR rockets or the big Tiny Tim ones. I know what the advantages and disadvantages of both are, but I'm not sure which one to get. On one hand, there's lots of HVAR rockets which means I'm probably going to miss the tiny little DDs that I use my rocket planes on less often. On the other hand, the Tiny Tim rockets pack a huge punch, meaning that they'll do more damage on DDs and on the cruisers and BBs I occasionally have to use the rocket planes on. Because I'm caught in this conundrum, I thought I'd pose it to the rest of you: Which rocket planes do you think are better, the HVARs or the Tiny Tims? Thanks in advance to anyone who responds. Sincerely, 1Sherman.
  9. _no_one_

    "Like a Boss"

    An exciting game against tier X. I would like to say that i don't face problems against tier X, unfortunately the truth is that it is very hard facing those powerful AA monsters , however i found the solution to many problems are to use the Tiny Tim rockets. Still this game doen't show big numbers in damage but shows what a T8 carrier can do vs tier X. Replay also uploaded if interested. 20190309_223120_PASA108-Lexington_23_Shards.wowsreplay
  10. So after some decent grinding in Ranger, plus some lovely free EXP drops and some $$ spend on some doubloons, I am now in possession of USS Lexington. The remaining Free EXP was used to research & purchase the upgraded fighters. I took it into a Coop Battle (because I wouldn't DARE bring a stock Lexington into a Random, knowing I could go up against Tier X's and face off against a Shokaku or Enterprise, both likely far more effective and efficient captains than I am) and it was... underwhelming, to say the least. A meager 49K dmg. A game or two down the line and I pump out a 109K and 132K dmg game, but something just doesn't seem to click like it did with Ranger. She feels weak. She certainly looks the part of a heavyweight hitter, but sure as heck don't swing like one. I'm seeing my strike squadrons drop out of the sky like flies going up against the same ships I did with Ranger to generally good success, though I imagine this would improve with upgraded squadrons. (I have just about the same upgrades, and the same captain fully retrained.) And she costs an arm and a leg to just service, not even repair. 60,000 credits a battle to maintain, and with some games going so fast I hardly have time to build up damage numbers, and I make as little as 2,000 credits to losing upwards of 10,000. I don't know if I'm missing something or what, but I'm not exactly impressed with Lexington thus far. I'll give it much more time before I make final judgement though. I have only had it for a day after all. And it's not like I'm going to abandon the line or anything because I don't like one ship. I've made it this far, I want to go all the way. I've heard she's kinda weaker than her contemporaries (which is alarming, seeing as that's the story for pretty much every USN CV on the line. As far as I know the line gets "good" at Essex, and continues to Midway. That is, not totally outclassed by the IJN CV of the same tier). I dunno. Maybe she just takes some getting used to or something.
×