Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
MrTurtle49

Lexington-class Battlecruiser Premium

35 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

28
[-TRM-]
Members
15 posts
1,280 battles

Idea for a premium ship, a lexington class battlecruiser, named either Lexington or Saratoga. She would have 8x16" guns in four turrets, 14 6" guns in fourteen turrets, and 7 inch main belt and 9 inch barbette and 11 inch turret armor. I also think that she should be a t8, and come with torpedoes as she was designed to carry them, four per side. Her secondaries would have good range and decent fire chance, but low rate of fire. If she was just t7 she should come with standard secondary range and no torpedoes.

H41961.jpg

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,452
[REVY]
Members
8,088 posts
6,118 battles
13 minutes ago, MrTurtle49 said:

Idea for a premium ship, a lexington class battlecruiser, named either Lexington or Saratoga. She would have 8x16" guns in four turrets, 14 6" guns in fourteen turrets, and 7 inch main belt and 9 inch barbette and 11 inch turret armor. I also think that she should be a t8, and come with torpedoes as she was designed to carry them, four per side. Her secondaries would have good range and decent fire chance, but low rate of fire. If she was just t7 she should come with standard secondary range and no torpedoes.

H41961.jpg

No.  No more pain from WGing.  They'll give it a 60 second reload to punish the US.

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 2
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
286
[-BMV-]
Members
535 posts
19,596 battles
41 minutes ago, MrTurtle49 said:

Idea for a premium ship, a lexington class battlecruiser, named either Lexington or Saratoga. She would have 8x16" guns in four turrets, 14 6" guns in fourteen turrets, and 7 inch main belt and 9 inch barbette and 11 inch turret armor. I also think that she should be a t8, and come with torpedoes as she was designed to carry them, four per side. Her secondaries would have good range and decent fire chance, but low rate of fire. If she was just t7 she should come with standard secondary range and no torpedoes.

H41961.jpg

Im all in for this proposal AS LONG as they don't use Saratoga as her name and is released as a Tier 7 instead of 8. There's already precedent for Premium BB class ships with torpedoes at that tier in the form of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Also, im pretty sure that at T8 WG will probably give ger a fictional refit, getting rid of the Lattice Masts which will make her anything but a Lexington CC. Regarding names i prefer either the other three available names (since Ranger and Lexington are already taken): CONSTITUTION, CONSTELLATION OR UNITED STATES.

Lile i said i support the Battlecruiser be included on the game but as a T-7 and leave Sister Sara's name out.

Edited by Sidelock
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28
[-TRM-]
Members
15 posts
1,280 battles
4 minutes ago, Sidelock said:

Im all in for this proposal AS LONG as they don't use Saratoga as her name. I prefer either the other three available names (since Ranger and Lexington are already taken): CONSTITUTION, CONSTELLATION OR UNITED STATES.

Lile i said i support the Battlecruiser be included on the game but leave Sister Sara's name out.

Why though? Saratoga was laid down as a battlecruiser and converted into an aircraft carrier. The Constitution, Constellation and United States were all cancelled before construction. Saratoga actually existed as a battlecruiser for a period of time.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
286
[-BMV-]
Members
535 posts
19,596 battles
3 minutes ago, MrTurtle49 said:

Why though? Saratoga was laid down as a battlecruiser and converted into an aircraft carrier. The Constitution, Constellation and United States were all cancelled before construction. Saratoga actually existed as a battlecruiser for a period of time.

Personal preference i suppose?.

Personally i believe Saratoga's name has more value as a CV (since she did fought as such) than her what if life as a Battlecruiser. Also im pretty sure WG also thinks that a CV named Saratoga with all the history involved would sell more than one named Constitution or Constellation.

But hey, if naming her Saratoga is what it takes to get a Lexington class Battlecruiser in the game i won't complain at all.

Edited by Sidelock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,452
[REVY]
Members
8,088 posts
6,118 battles
10 minutes ago, Sidelock said:

Also im pretty sure WG also thinks that a CV named Saratoga with all the history involved would sell more than one named Constitution or Constellation.

Another problem is that USS Constitution is the only commissioned ship in the United States Navy that ever sunk another ship in combat at present and thus would also supersede anything else historically.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28
[-TRM-]
Members
15 posts
1,280 battles
14 minutes ago, Sidelock said:

Personal preference i suppose?.

Personally i believe Saratoga's name has more value as a CV (since she did fought as such) than her what if life as a Battlecruiser. Also im pretty sure WG also thinks that a CV named Saratoga with all the history involved would sell more than one named Constitution or Constellation.

But hey, if naming her Saratoga is what it takes to get a Lexington class Battlecruiser in the game i won't complain at all.

Personal preference is totally fine, but tbh I'd rather see Hornet or Yorktown before we get a Saratoga as CV

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,901
[SYN]
Members
15,874 posts
12,803 battles

I half expect WG to make a premium CV Saratoga instead.

It'll have its original configuration of 4x twin 203mm turrets, instead of the modernized 127mm/38 DP turrets.

image.png.305ebc2425df300321fe34c63d213abd.png

Why? because it's easy copy pasta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
237 posts

Given the historical significance of the class (the only true Battlecruisers the USN laid-down), I'm sure they will enter the game at some point....In the long run I believe WG will introduce BC's as their own class(yes and I know what has been said on that topic by WG...however as someone who has been following and playing the game since before Beta testing they have said alot of things that have been proven incorrect/changed their minds/untrue such as the introduction of RN ships in their timeline, Subs, Russian BB's, KM CVs etc)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
659 posts

There are plenty of ships in the game already and more than enough maps with lots of little islands. 

 

I'm ready for more game modes and scenarios - more variety to use all those ships.  

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,716
[SALVO]
Members
25,426 posts
27,347 battles
5 hours ago, Sventex said:

Another problem is that USS Constitution is the only commissioned ship in the United States Navy that ever sunk another ship in combat at present and thus would also supersede anything else historically.

Agreed, which is why this name should also be untouchable.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
78
[TWE]
Beta Testers
198 posts
1,464 battles
7 hours ago, MrTurtle49 said:

Idea for a premium ship, a lexington class battlecruiser, named either Lexington or Saratoga. She would have 8x16" guns in four turrets, 14 6" guns in fourteen turrets, and 7 inch main belt and 9 inch barbette and 11 inch turret armor. I also think that she should be a t8, and come with torpedoes as she was designed to carry them, four per side. Her secondaries would have good range and decent fire chance, but low rate of fire. If she was just t7 she should come with standard secondary range and no torpedoes.

H41961.jpg

 

4 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Would have been nice to see a US BC line with this in it

Friends, let us discuss this further!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,411 posts
40,554 battles
7 hours ago, Sventex said:

No.  No more pain from WGing.  They'll give it a 60 second reload to punish the US.

And it will go 40 knots but take 3 days to turn around because it has a terrible rudder.

The dispersion will make the old Freddy look like a superior marksman.

The torpedoes will be 4.5 km and 45 knots because balance.

It will be the first ship type to be able to set 6 fires on it making Smolly players sooooooooo Happy!

Edited by SteelRain_Rifleman
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,946
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,776 posts
712 battles
9 hours ago, Sventex said:

No.  No more pain from WGing.  They'll give it a 60 second reload to punish the US.

 

And then they'd make it tier 8

And give it 16"/45s instead of 16"/50s

And give it some made-up shell that's too light.

And a 1.5 sigma

And 75 second turret traverse

 

Because "Sucking" is the new American national flavor, apparently. 

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,946
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,776 posts
712 battles

In all seriousness, I can't see them adding them in their 1920s as-built configuration as premiums. They'd have to be too low tier. They'd have to be like tier 5 or 6. Because they're huge and have no armor. But 16"/50s at tier 5 or tier 6 isn't going to happen.

 

So if they do add them I'm sure we'll see some sort of fantasy 1940s modernization just like we did the Sodak20s. Which might not be all bad honestly.

 

OzBt1EK.png

 

This was a custom harbor model someone did for NavyFIELD, and honestly I'm digging it quite a bit. 'Modern' secondaries, torpedo bulges. It'd probably lose a bit of speed but these ships were so fast that a coupe knots knocked off the top and they'd still be fast. Turbo-electric drives so they'd have waterline (or below) citadels. 

 

That at tier 8 or tier? Line me up. As long as it doesn't get a dose of whatever they gave the Sodak20s and Oklahoma...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
690
[NUWES]
Members
3,240 posts
11,461 battles
9 hours ago, MrDeaf said:

I half expect WG to make a premium CV Saratoga instead.

It'll have its original configuration of 4x twin 203mm turrets, instead of the modernized 127mm/38 DP turrets.

image.png.305ebc2425df300321fe34c63d213abd.png

Why? because it's easy copy pasta

They certainly could do it similar to Ark Royal, with a large number of downtiered planes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
690
[NUWES]
Members
3,240 posts
11,461 battles
1 hour ago, ramp4ge said:

In all seriousness, I can't see them adding them in their 1920s as-built configuration as premiums. They'd have to be too low tier. They'd have to be like tier 5 or 6. Because they're huge and have no armor. But 16"/50s at tier 5 or tier 6 isn't going to happen.

 

So if they do add them I'm sure we'll see some sort of fantasy 1940s modernization just like we did the Sodak20s. Which might not be all bad honestly.

 

OzBt1EK.png

 

This was a custom harbor model someone did for NavyFIELD, and honestly I'm digging it quite a bit. 'Modern' secondaries, torpedo bulges. It'd probably lose a bit of speed but these ships were so fast that a coupe knots knocked off the top and they'd still be fast. Turbo-electric drives so they'd have waterline (or below) citadels. 

 

That at tier 8 or tier? Line me up. As long as it doesn't get a dose of whatever they gave the Sodak20s and Oklahoma...

100% agreed. The ship would be hard to tier in its original form. Its dreadful armor really only works on low tier but its size, firepower and speed demand higher tiers. I think, if we see it, the above is pretty much how it will appear. It also allows them to give it fictional belt armor upgrades so it functions better as a T7or T8. 

Another alternative is to use one of the earlier plans with the 14" (356mm) guns that looked like an enormous Pensacola. That one could work at low tiers even with fairly poor armor. That one is unlikely though because they can't sell a low-tier BB for as much. A Lexington BC is simply more valuable t them as a higher-tier ship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,395
[IRNBN]
Members
3,679 posts
10,703 battles
10 hours ago, Sidelock said:

Also, im pretty sure that at T8 WG will probably give ger a fictional refit, getting rid of the Lattice Masts which will make her anything but a Lexington CC.

Yeah. Once upon a time WG was pretty good about sticking to the actual appearance of ships, then we started getting fantasy crap like Iron Duke with a missing funnel and those goofy funnel caps on the PEF.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,946
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,776 posts
712 battles
1 minute ago, Balon_Greyjoy said:

Yeah. Once upon a time WG was pretty good about sticking to the actual appearance of ships, then we started getting fantasy crap like Iron Duke with a missing funnel and those goofy funnel caps on the PEF.

 

Sometimes it's necessary. Sometimes a ship as it actually existed just can't fit into the game the way the tiers are laid out and Lexington would almost certainly be one of those. Because there's no way in hell we'd see a 33+ knot ship with 7" belt armor cruising around tier 5 matches with 8 16"/50 guns. Contrary, there's no way in hell we'd see that same ship at tier 8. On one side it'd dominate. On the other it'd be dominated. The only real thing you can do is to give it an upgrade that it likely would have received had it existed at the time period represented by the tier you're placing it in. It's the same thing Wargaming did for the Sodak20s. The ships were never completed, so we never got to see what a late-20s/early-30s modernization (IE, tier 6-ish) would've looked like, let alone a post-Pearl modernization (IE, tier 7+), but based on the upgrades other ships of that nation received in the same time represented, it's not hard to assume what it would've looked like. 

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
158
[TFFOX]
Members
789 posts
1,580 battles
10 hours ago, Sventex said:

Another problem is that USS Constitution is the only commissioned ship in the United States Navy that ever sunk another ship in combat at present and thus would also supersede anything else historically.

aaand pretty sure you're not supposed to have 2 ships commissioned in the USN that have the same name.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,452
[REVY]
Members
8,088 posts
6,118 battles
19 minutes ago, AdmiralFox08 said:

aaand pretty sure you're not supposed to have 2 ships commissioned in the USN that have the same name.....

I think what happened was that USS Constitution and USS Constellation were in "grave condition" and were decommissioned at this specific time period and were renamed USS Old Constitution and USS Old Constellation to give those Battlecruisers those names.  Back then the USN was really just using those ships to train sailors in the art of handling sails.

If I wanted to name a ship in honor of the USS Constitution, personally I would have named it USS Old Ironsides.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,946
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,776 posts
712 battles
12 minutes ago, AdmiralFox08 said:

aaand pretty sure you're not supposed to have 2 ships commissioned in the USN that have the same name.....

 

You can have ships that have the same name, just not the same registry. Which is why she carried an IX prefix, and now carries no registry prefix. So her name can be used by another commissioned warship.

From nvr.navy.mil

THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (J. WILLIAM MIDDENDORF, II) DIRECTED THE RECLASSIFICATION OF USS CONSTITUTION FROM "IX 21" TO "NONE" EFFECTIVE 1 SEPTEMBER 1975. SHE IS LISTED ON THE NAVAL VESSEL REGISTER (NVR) AS A COMMISSIONED SHIP AND BY NAME ONLY.

 

So theoretically, you could have a DDG named Constitution as well, as long as it was DDG-XXX USS Constitution.

 

It's more 'tradition' that keeps them from reusing the name than anything else at this point. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
158
[TFFOX]
Members
789 posts
1,580 battles
26 minutes ago, Sventex said:

If I wanted to name a ship in honor of the USS Constitution, personally I would have named it USS Old Ironsides.

USS Old Ironsides... Me Likey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,556
[ARS]
Beta Testers
5,114 posts
5,649 battles
57 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

 

Sometimes it's necessary. Sometimes a ship as it actually existed just can't fit into the game the way the tiers are laid out and Lexington would almost certainly be one of those. Because there's no way in hell we'd see a 33+ knot ship with 7" belt armor cruising around tier 5 matches with 8 16"/50 guns. 

Why not?  The 32 knot, eight 15" gunned, 12" belt armor Tier VII ship already in the game isn't even considered to be a good ship even with improved AP penetration angles and an excellent armor scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×