Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
otakuben

USS Constitution - Lexington Class Battlecruiser Proposal

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
1,085 posts
1,522 battles

So there was a thread a while back posing the possibility of bringing in the only design for a battlecruiser by the US. While it wasn't looked at much I was looking again and thought maybe there might be some merit in bringing in this rare design of a ship.

 

Lets explain the Lexington class first off and it's origin.

The Lexington Class Battelcruiser's were a design made up in response to the Kongo Class Battlecruisers put out by japan. The original design called for a full battlecruiser concept. It would have 10/15" guns and have a top speed of 35 knots. The compromise for the speed would come in it's armor. Unlike the proposed South Dakota Battleships the Lexington class would have 178mm armor belt. While it would be lightly armored compared to battleships the thought was the speed would be enough to overcome the deficiency in armor.

After the plans were submitted to the pentagon in the 1916 naval act it was redesigned to have 8/16" guns.

This was the layout.

us_bb_62.thumb.gif.74bb4fa682403f490340beee45d2cfce.gif

 

Now this was the design with 16" guns. However I feel that it should have the 14" guns and should sit at tier 7. Here's why.

 

The Battlecruiser was a unique, albeit failed, concept that really spoke about how people viewed the arms race on the seas. This was the United States contribution to the battlecruiser idea. Here's how I would design and place this battlecruiser.

 

Name: USS Constitution (Why this name, because the grandest naval vessel that has served the US deserves to make it in game in some form)

Tier: 7

Speed: 35 knots (unprecedented for this type of ship but a good argument to make her more unique)

Displacement: 43,500 Long tons

Price: 5800 gold

Armor: Belt - 178mm

             Barbettes - 229mm

            Turret Face - 279mm

            Turret Sides - 152mm

            Conning Tower - 305mm

            Deck - 57mm

Main Armament: 10/14" Mark 1 Naval Guns

Firing Range: 21km

Rate of Fire: 2.7 shots/min

Secondary Armament: 18/5" guns

AA Armament: 18/76mm guns (I'm not sure how well these will do at the tier but it is possible to revamp this a bit as AA was constantly changed as the war progressed)

 

This is just a loose design and in no way represents some final idea. I think it's a interesting design and could provide a tier 7 ship with some very unique capabilities.

 

Would enjoy your thoughts, suggestions and objections.

  • Cool 4
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
491
[NUWES]
Members
2,681 posts
8,593 battles

I'm all for it. I like the modernized version that @stormdeath01 posted a while back which was fully modernized. The Lexingtons as planned had absolutely abysmal armor so the least they could do is modernize it a bit. 

Spoiler

See the source image

Spoiler

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
276 posts

I don't like the 14" at t7, but it's worth noting that, like the  Pepsicola  Pensacola, they would have had the triples in the super firing turrets, not the deck turrets.

An advantage of the 8 16" guns is it provides an interesting tradeoff with the tier T7 USN BB, the Colorado. Both would have 8 16"s, but the Constitution would trade armor for speed and slightly faster shell velocity (given the 16"/50 Mk2, over the 16"/45 Mk1 on the Colorado.)

You'd have to image a WWII refit, as built, there's no AA to speak of and that's not going to work at T7, but modeling such after the Colorado's in-game AA suite would work, since they would have been refitted at about the same intervals. 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,164
[SALVO]
Members
23,279 posts
23,917 battles
28 minutes ago, otakuben said:

So there was a thread a while back posing the possibility of bringing in the only design for a battlecruiser by the US. While it wasn't looked at much I was looking again and thought maybe there might be some merit in bringing in this rare design of a ship.

 

Lets explain the Lexington class first off and it's origin.

The Lexington Class Battelcruiser's were a design made up in response to the Kongo Class Battlecruisers put out by japan. The original design called for a full battlecruiser concept. It would have 10/15" guns and have a top speed of 35 knots. The compromise for the speed would come in it's armor. Unlike the proposed South Dakota Battleships the Lexington class would have 178mm armor belt. While it would be lightly armored compared to battleships the thought was the speed would be enough to overcome the deficiency in armor.

After the plans were submitted to the pentagon in the 1916 naval act it was redesigned to have 8/16" guns.

This was the layout.

 

 

Now this was the design with 16" guns. However I feel that it should have the 14" guns and should sit at tier 7. Here's why.

 

The Battlecruiser was a unique, albeit failed, concept that really spoke about how people viewed the arms race on the seas. This was the United States contribution to the battlecruiser idea. Here's how I would design and place this battlecruiser.

 

Name: USS Constitution (Why this name, because the grandest naval vessel that has served the US deserves to make it in game in some form)

Tier: 7

Speed: 35 knots (unprecedented for this type of ship but a good argument to make her more unique)

Displacement: 43,500 Long tons

Price: 5800 gold

Armor: Belt - 178mm

             Barbettes - 229mm

            Turret Face - 279mm

            Turret Sides - 152mm

            Conning Tower - 305mm

            Deck - 57mm

Main Armament: 10/14" Mark 1 Naval Guns

Firing Range: 21km

Rate of Fire: 2.7 shots/min

Secondary Armament: 18/5" guns

AA Armament: 18/76mm guns (I'm not sure how well these will do at the tier but it is possible to revamp this a bit as AA was constantly changed as the war progressed)

 

This is just a loose design and in no way represents some final idea. I think it's a interesting design and could provide a tier 7 ship with some very unique capabilities.

 

Would enjoy your thoughts, suggestions and objections.

1. Constellation is a better name.  The USS Constitution is an active duty (albeit as a historical ship) USN ship, and her name shouldn't be touched.  Constellation may be in current use by the US Navy, though I don't know.  Regardless, Constitution is a much more famous and historical name than Constellation, and should remain untouched, leaving Constellation for use in WoWS and this role.

2. You didn't give one bloody reason for why the ship's main guns should be reduced in size.  I think that they should remain as is.  A 14" gunned tier 7 battlecruiser would be VERY undergunned, particularly with her lackluster armor.  With the 16" guns, the ship becomes competitive with the Ashitaka, a contemporaneous Japanese battlecruiser design, at tier 7.

 

So, I'm sorry, but if the Lexington class battlecruiser is going to get into the game, it should follow the historical design.  16" (4x2 turrets) mains, 14 x single 6" secondaries, 33 kt max speed, and so on.

Lexington-class Battlecruiser

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,164
[SALVO]
Members
23,279 posts
23,917 battles
12 minutes ago, Tzarevitch said:

I'm all for it. I like the modernized version that @stormdeath01 posted a while back which was fully modernized. The Lexingtons as planned had absolutely abysmal armor so the least they could do is modernize it a bit. 

  Reveal hidden contents

See the source image

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

That first picture is very interesting, Tzarevitch, with the WW2 refit, though the white main gun turrets look decidedly out of place on a ship painted in a darkish gray camo pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
64 posts
5,606 battles
55 minutes ago, otakuben said:

So there was a thread a while back posing the possibility of bringing in the only design for a battlecruiser by the US. While it wasn't looked at much I was looking again and thought maybe there might be some merit in bringing in this rare design of a ship.

 

Lets explain the Lexington class first off and it's origin.

The Lexington Class Battelcruiser's were a design made up in response to the Kongo Class Battlecruisers put out by japan. The original design called for a full battlecruiser concept. It would have 10/15" guns and have a top speed of 35 knots. The compromise for the speed would come in it's armor. Unlike the proposed South Dakota Battleships the Lexington class would have 178mm armor belt. While it would be lightly armored compared to battleships the thought was the speed would be enough to overcome the deficiency in armor.

After the plans were submitted to the pentagon in the 1916 naval act it was redesigned to have 8/16" guns.

This was the layout.

us_bb_62.thumb.gif.74bb4fa682403f490340beee45d2cfce.gif

 

Now this was the design with 16" guns. However I feel that it should have the 14" guns and should sit at tier 7. Here's why.

 

The Battlecruiser was a unique, albeit failed, concept that really spoke about how people viewed the arms race on the seas. This was the United States contribution to the battlecruiser idea. Here's how I would design and place this battlecruiser.

 

Name: USS Constitution (Why this name, because the grandest naval vessel that has served the US deserves to make it in game in some form)

Tier: 7

Speed: 35 knots (unprecedented for this type of ship but a good argument to make her more unique)

Displacement: 43,500 Long tons

Price: 5800 gold

Armor: Belt - 178mm

             Barbettes - 229mm

            Turret Face - 279mm

            Turret Sides - 152mm

            Conning Tower - 305mm

            Deck - 57mm

Main Armament: 10/14" Mark 1 Naval Guns

Firing Range: 21km

Rate of Fire: 2.7 shots/min

Secondary Armament: 18/5" guns

AA Armament: 18/76mm guns (I'm not sure how well these will do at the tier but it is possible to revamp this a bit as AA was constantly changed as the war progressed)

 

This is just a loose design and in no way represents some final idea. I think it's a interesting design and could provide a tier 7 ship with some very unique capabilities.

 

Would enjoy your thoughts, suggestions and objections.

I’m all for bringing in new ships. But I wish they (WG) would slow down on the Premium ships and instead focus on making tech tree ships, such as making a split in the US BB line!

I don’t know what it is about tech tree ships but I find myself playing them more than any Premiums I’ve had. Maybe its the challenge or the grinding part, I don’t know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,386
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
23,368 posts
12,931 battles

Constitution was going to be the name of one of them. The ships were going to be named Lexington, Constellation, Saratoga, Ranger, Constitution, and United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,066
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
4,695 posts
8 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Constitution was going to be the name of one of them. The ships were going to be named Lexington, Constellation, Saratoga, Ranger, Constitution, and United States.

I like the idea.

I like the name suggestion.

I don't like them paired together.

Constitution was "Old Ironsides."   It needs to be reserved for a super tough ship.   A battlecruiser isn't the right fit.   Constellation works though.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[CVBG]
Members
3 posts
3,204 battles

Sounds like America Hood to me.

Kind of want a British battle cruise line now ending with the G3 design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,074
[WOLF9]
Privateers
11,785 posts
4,594 battles
1 hour ago, CptRemy said:

instead focus on making tech tree ships, such as making a split in the US BB line!

Split off a battlecruiser line.   The Lexington class could provide two members - one early and one late fit.  Alaska sister another.  How many needed, five?

 

3 minutes ago, Lexington_MuseumO7 said:

IT MUST REMAIN AS AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER. ANYTHING ELSE IS HERESY! 

troll.gif.2ecf37131df9c9e6fc0ea3966b8f8f5f.gif Are you trying for a downvote record? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,687
[OO7]
Members
5,979 posts
12,984 battles
4 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

 

 

troll.gif.2ecf37131df9c9e6fc0ea3966b8f8f5f.gif Are you trying for a downvote record? 

No, but I think that if it comes, it should be for steel only

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,029 posts
3,603 battles
1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

Constitution was going to be the name of one of them. The ships were going to be named Lexington, Constellation, Saratoga, Ranger, Constitution, and United States.

I think Constellation is the best choice, and I like the idea. All the others risk too much confusion with the CVs that actually ended up bearing the names.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,085 posts
1,522 battles
1 hour ago, Tzarevitch said:

I'm all for it. I like the modernized version that @stormdeath01 posted a while back which was fully modernized. The Lexingtons as planned had absolutely abysmal armor so the least they could do is modernize it a bit. 

  Reveal hidden contents

See the source image

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I feel like a fast capital ship with weaker armor could present a more unique playstyle. Not to say the AA couldn't use help.

 

1 hour ago, Crucis said:

1. Constellation is a better name.  The USS Constitution is an active duty (albeit as a historical ship) USN ship, and her name shouldn't be touched.  Constellation may be in current use by the US Navy, though I don't know.  Regardless, Constitution is a much more famous and historical name than Constellation, and should remain untouched, leaving Constellation for use in WoWS and this role.

2. You didn't give one bloody reason for why the ship's main guns should be reduced in size.  I think that they should remain as is.  A 14" gunned tier 7 battlecruiser would be VERY undergunned, particularly with her lackluster armor.  With the 16" guns, the ship becomes competitive with the Ashitaka, a contemporaneous Japanese battlecruiser design, at tier 7.

 

So, I'm sorry, but if the Lexington class battlecruiser is going to get into the game, it should follow the historical design.  16" (4x2 turrets) mains, 14 x single 6" secondaries, 33 kt max speed, and so on.

Lexington-class Battlecruiser

1. Constitution was one of the names they were going to use for the ship. While I understand it's rather untouchable symbolism apparently it wasn't untouchable enough for the Government to consider using it. Also while I do hold the original Constitution in high respect I think it deserves some type of honor within a game about naval warfare.

 

2. Historically speaking the Lexington Class Battlecruiser was designed originally with 10/14" guns not 8/16". It wasn't till the naval treaty that they redesigned it reducing the speed, increasing weight and gun size. My proposition is the Battlecruiser in its original concept.

 

Also I feel like the 14" are not underpowered as we have the Scharnhorst which is a tier 7 premium with 9/11" guns. With the right reload the guns can be competitive and slot really well into the Battlecruiser concept.

 

54 minutes ago, TheDreadnought said:

I like the idea.

I like the name suggestion.

I don't like them paired together.

Constitution was "Old Ironsides."   It needs to be reserved for a super tough ship.   A battlecruiser isn't the right fit.   Constellation works though.

I get that and I can concede on the name but personally I think the constitution needs in the game and I don't think there's many ways to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
491
[NUWES]
Members
2,681 posts
8,593 battles
4 hours ago, otakuben said:

I feel like a fast capital ship with weaker armor could present a more unique playstyle. Not to say the AA couldn't use help.

 

1. Constitution was one of the names they were going to use for the ship. While I understand it's rather untouchable symbolism apparently it wasn't untouchable enough for the Government to consider using it. Also while I do hold the original Constitution in high respect I think it deserves some type of honor within a game about naval warfare.

 

2. Historically speaking the Lexington Class Battlecruiser was designed originally with 10/14" guns not 8/16". It wasn't till the naval treaty that they redesigned it reducing the speed, increasing weight and gun size. My proposition is the Battlecruiser in its original concept.

 

Also I feel like the 14" are not underpowered as we have the Scharnhorst which is a tier 7 premium with 9/11" guns. With the right reload the guns can be competitive and slot really well into the Battlecruiser concept.

 

I get that and I can concede on the name but personally I think the constitution needs in the game and I don't think there's many ways to do that.

I think the guns will be fine. Honestly I think the ship would be ok on T7 with good angling.  The only real weak point (and it is a big one given the ship's size) is the armor scheme was absolutely terrible. It is basically a bigger, faster Kongo with 2 more barrels and even less armor. You have to go down to T4  to find BB armor as thin as Lexington was planned to have (Myogi and Ishizuchi in particular may be worse). The armor is worse in places than some high-tier cruisers. I don't think the ship can be placed any higher with armor that bad. You can also make a decent argument that T6 might be better since there are fewer ships that can just blow through her armor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,085 posts
1,522 battles
5 minutes ago, Tzarevitch said:

I think the guns will be fine. Honestly I think the ship would be ok on T7 with good angling.  The only real weak point (and it is a big one given the ship's size) is the armor scheme was absolutely terrible. It is basically a bigger, faster Kongo with 2 more barrels and even less armor. You have to go down to T4  to find BB armor as thin as Lexington was planned to have (Myogi and Ishizuchi in particular may be worse). The armor is worse in places than some high-tier cruisers. I don't think the ship can be placed any higher with armor that bad. You can also make a decent argument that T6 might be better since there are fewer ships that can just blow through her armor. 

I agree. An argument can be made for tier 6. I figured since she was based off lessons learned from the hood then she would fit in at tier 7. A really overpowered cruiser essentially. With a speed of 35 knots she could put some cruisers to shame. I think she would play like a good mix of cruiser and battleship. Have to watch your broadside against BB's and they can't just broadside you like they do CA's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,164
[SALVO]
Members
23,279 posts
23,917 battles
5 hours ago, otakuben said:

 

 

1. Constitution was one of the names they were going to use for the ship. While I understand it's rather untouchable symbolism apparently it wasn't untouchable enough for the Government to consider using it. Also while I do hold the original Constitution in high respect I think it deserves some type of honor within a game about naval warfare.

 

2. Historically speaking the Lexington Class Battlecruiser was designed originally with 10/14" guns not 8/16". It wasn't till the naval treaty that they redesigned it reducing the speed, increasing weight and gun size. My proposition is the Battlecruiser in its original concept.

 

Also I feel like the 14" are not underpowered as we have the Scharnhorst which is a tier 7 premium with 9/11" guns. With the right reload the guns can be competitive and slot really well into the Battlecruiser concept.

1.  The Constitution name didn't have quite the level of respect back around 1920 compared to what it has today.

2. That may be true, but it doesn't matter.  The version which was intended to be built was the 8x16" gunned version.

 

As for the 14" gun size, the Scharnhorsts were built with 11" guns for POLITICAL reasons, not because the builders really wanted to use such small guns.  The Germans were trying (though they failed) to anger the Brits, and cause the Brits to build new ships to counter them.  The Brits were willing to give the Spee's a pass, but they weren't willing to do so for the Scharnhorsts.

Furthermore, the Scharnhorsts weren't really meant to be battle line units.  They were meant to be heavy convoy raiders, where 11" guns were going to be sufficient for the job.  But those same 11" guns really wouldn't have cut the mustard against real battle line units.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
227
[SUCIT]
Members
644 posts
15,811 battles

Its possible that both versions (the Nevada armament and the Colorado armament) can work at T6 and 7 respectively. the first group (Lex, Saratoga, Constellation) built with 14in guns, and second batch (Constitution, United States, Ranger) built with 16in guns after naval developments occurring during construction that couldn't be given to the first three.

T6: take your pick between Constitution, Constellation, or United States for name. Lets also assume that this was built and was slightly modernized as a ship like this would appear in 1940.

armament: 10 14in guns (assume that if built, guns would be upgraded to the shells New Mexico fires) 10500 AP citadel damage

secondaries: some casemate mounted 6in secondaries (Omaha guns) and some 5in/25s. Nothing special

armor: as built (178mm armor, lack of torpedo bulges)

AA: Chicago Pianos, 50cals, possibly some of the 6in secondaries and 3in AA guns removed for some 5in/25s

Speed: as designed (32knts)

 

T7: take pick between Constitution, Constellation, or United States. Lets also assume these ships were built, but the second batch with 16in guns. but this time, the US realize that the main rival for these ships (HMS Hood) is blown up by Bismarck, meaning a review of the battle would show these ships would need a refit for more armor to withstand modern naval rifles. There is also the possibility that at least one of these ships, if they were built, would of been stationed at Pearl Harbor on that day, its possible the ship or ships of the class here would be sunk, so while rasing it, why not heavily modernize it as it has the speed to act as a carrier escort and make a nice Cruiser Division leader or supporting act to the Iowas. So the T7 will appear as if it rose from the ashes at Pearl in 1944.

armament: 8 16in guns (like what Colorado has) 12400 AP citadel damage

armor: modernized (thinking probably around 278-305mm to give her protection against some capital ships, also will have bigger torpedo belt

AA: Wherever there is an empty space, there is probably a bofors nest using it, along with 20 5in/38s in 10 twin mounts

Secondaries: those 5in/38s, plus some casemate mounted 6in guns, but likely upgraded to Cleveland's guns, so they fire faster and do more damage.

Speed: I would also think with these modernizations engine power would be improved to keep around 33knts.

Another interesting question is if built and modernized that much after a potential sinking at Pearl Harbor, with that speed, armor slightly worse than Iowa's, and good Firepower, it would be an interesting conundrum to think that post war (or maybe during modernization during the war) they could of requisitioned the 16in barrels from Kentucky and/or Illinois and put them on one of them on Colorado's turrets. They could of served alongside the Iowas until the 90s before becoming museums.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
276 posts
18 hours ago, otakuben said:

Also while I do hold the original Constitution in high respect I think it deserves some type of honor within a game about naval warfare.

Careful, or WG will sell it as a tier -2 premium. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,148
[_-_]
Members
2,740 posts
7,757 battles
21 hours ago, otakuben said:

So there was a thread a while back posing the possibility of bringing in the only design for a battlecruiser by the US. While it wasn't looked at much I was looking again and thought maybe there might be some merit in bringing in this rare design of a ship.

 

Lets explain the Lexington class first off and it's origin.

The Lexington Class Battelcruiser's were a design made up in response to the Kongo Class Battlecruisers put out by japan. The original design called for a full battlecruiser concept. It would have 10/15" guns and have a top speed of 35 knots. The compromise for the speed would come in it's armor. Unlike the proposed South Dakota Battleships the Lexington class would have 178mm armor belt. While it would be lightly armored compared to battleships the thought was the speed would be enough to overcome the deficiency in armor.

After the plans were submitted to the pentagon in the 1916 naval act it was redesigned to have 8/16" guns.

This was the layout.

us_bb_62.thumb.gif.74bb4fa682403f490340beee45d2cfce.gif

 

Now this was the design with 16" guns. However I feel that it should have the 14" guns and should sit at tier 7. Here's why.

 

The Battlecruiser was a unique, albeit failed, concept that really spoke about how people viewed the arms race on the seas. This was the United States contribution to the battlecruiser idea. Here's how I would design and place this battlecruiser.

 

Name: USS Constitution (Why this name, because the grandest naval vessel that has served the US deserves to make it in game in some form)

Tier: 7

Speed: 35 knots (unprecedented for this type of ship but a good argument to make her more unique)

Displacement: 43,500 Long tons

Price: 5800 gold

Armor: Belt - 178mm

             Barbettes - 229mm

            Turret Face - 279mm

            Turret Sides - 152mm

            Conning Tower - 305mm

            Deck - 57mm

Main Armament: 10/14" Mark 1 Naval Guns

Firing Range: 21km

Rate of Fire: 2.7 shots/min

Secondary Armament: 18/5" guns

AA Armament: 18/76mm guns (I'm not sure how well these will do at the tier but it is possible to revamp this a bit as AA was constantly changed as the war progressed)

 

This is just a loose design and in no way represents some final idea. I think it's a interesting design and could provide a tier 7 ship with some very unique capabilities.

 

Would enjoy your thoughts, suggestions and objections.

I'd love to see a decent inplementation of the Lexingtons, but I'm afraid WG would bastardize  "modernize" them like the PEF and Iron Duke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,085 posts
1,522 battles
2 hours ago, User_the_n00b said:

Careful, or WG will sell it as a tier -2 premium. 

And put it with tier 8's because historically it had iron sides.

 

1 hour ago, So_lt_Goes said:

I'd love to see a decent inplementation of the Lexingtons, but I'm afraid WG would bastardize  "modernize" them like the PEF and Iron Duke.

I understand why people want the modernization but the AA is no worse than the Arizona historically. Though adding some probably wouldn't go amiss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
491
[NUWES]
Members
2,681 posts
8,593 battles
21 hours ago, TJB67 said:

Sounds like America Hood to me.

Kind of want a British battle cruise line now ending with the G3 design.

It is similar to Hood although the Lexingtons had nowhere close to as much armor as Hood had. Since they were never built in that firm War gaming could up-fudge the armor a bit, or put on T6 or use a range of other tricks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×