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

Does the USS Constellation have the wrong main guns?

74 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

284
[CLUMP]
Members
397 posts

I have been doing some reading on the Lexington-Class Battle Cruisers (USS Constellation Designs). A lot of what I have read says it should be armed with 16"/50 guns like the Iowa has (More than likely Mark 7s). Not the 16"/45 that it received. 

More than likely this ship should have 16" Mk 7s. 

Edited by USMC_FMF
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
864
[PROJX]
Beta Testers
1,368 posts
5,519 battles

FYI USS Constitution is also an upcoming ship, your title could be confusing especially considering the Constitution has a wrong gun layout. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,384
[CO-OP]
Members
3,805 posts
31,131 battles

@USMC_FMF you're correct, she should have 406/50 guns.  That said, please fix the title (USS Constellation not USS Constitution.)

edit: ninja'd by @PotatoMD

 

Edited by HamptonRoads
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
284
[CLUMP]
Members
397 posts
2 minutes ago, HamptonRoads said:

@USMC_FMF you're correct, she should have 406/50 guns.  That said, please fix the title (USS Constellation not USS Constitution.)

edit: ninja'd by @PotatoMD

 

Done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,272
[LEGIO]
Members
3,568 posts
9,106 battles

Yes the Lexington class CCs were always going to be armed with the 16"/50 caliber Mark 2 or Mark 3 (which were virtually identical). By the time of WWII these would be firing the 2,240lb Mark 5 AP shell probably at a muzzle velocity of 2,700 or 2,800 feet per second. Theoretically they could be upgraded to use the same 2,700lb Mark 7 "super heavy" AP shell which would be fired at 2,500 feet per second like on the Iowa class but this is unlikely. Even when USS West Virginia was extensively repaired and modernized after Pearl Harbor they didn't bother upgrading the hoists and shell handling to use the heavier shell.

Currently the model for Constellation seems to be using the same 16"/45 Mark 1 or later Mark 5 that the Colorado class used. Personally I'm not going to get the ship if they can't be bothered to give it the right main armament.

  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
144
[TWE]
Beta Testers
346 posts
1,881 battles

In short, yes as other posters have correctly pointed out. However, WG interestingly enough as yet to implement the 16"/50 mk. 2 et. al. in the game. Notice that the Kansas (ie. The original South Dakota) would have been similarly armed but we again see the older 45 cal versions on it. Hell, if the Minnesota is in fact just an extrapolation of the same design and a sort of post-Pearl rebuild, It'd still have the same guns, though likely with superior shells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
284
[CLUMP]
Members
397 posts
6 minutes ago, Trophy_Wench said:

In short, yes as other posters have correctly pointed out. However, WG interestingly enough as yet to implement the 16"/50 mk. 2 et. al. in the game. Notice that the Kansas (ie. The original South Dakota) would have been similarly armed but we again see the older 45 cal versions on it. Hell, if the Minnesota is in fact just an extrapolation of the same design and a sort of post-Pearl rebuild, It'd still have the same guns, though likely with superior shells.

I find this to be interesting that they would give these ships old guns, when some of the RU ships run the 220mm/65 from 1953+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,179
[WOLF5]
Supertester
5,233 posts
4,348 battles
1 hour ago, USMC_FMF said:

I have been doing some reading on the Lexington-Class Battle Cruisers (USS Constellation Designs). A lot of what I have read says it should be armed with 16"/50 guns like the Iowa has (More than likely Mark 7s). Not the 16"/45 that it received. 

More than likely this ship should have 16" Mk 7s. 

Really? As a 1920s design I would think she would have the 45s like NC and SD had, the 50 was designed later and put on the Iowas. I'm not an expert by any means but I'd be surprised if the USN was planning to put 16/50s on the Lexingtons but then went back to the 16/45 for the NCs and SDs.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,225
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
31,700 posts
26,591 battles
11 minutes ago, USMC_FMF said:

I find this to be interesting that they would give these ships old guns, when some of the RU ships run the 220mm/65 from 1953+

I mean, this is a game with a Full German Carrier Line.  A nation that has never built and operated a Carrier at all in its history, even going into today, has a Full Carrier Line.

1 minute ago, AJTP89 said:

Really? As a 1920s design I would think she would have the 45s like NC and SD had, the 50 was designed later and put on the Iowas. I'm not an expert by any means but I'd be surprised if the USN was planning to put 16/50s on the Lexingtons but then went back to the 16/45 for the NCs and SDs.

The US Navy had intended 16"/50 guns for the 1920s South Dakota-class BBs and Lexington-class Battlecruisers.  But they were 16"/50 Marks 2 & 3.  The Iowas and the Montanas would have been equipped with the later 16"/50 Mark 7.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,272
[LEGIO]
Members
3,568 posts
9,106 battles
1 minute ago, AJTP89 said:

Really? As a 1920s design I would think she would have the 45s like NC and SD had, the 50 was designed later and put on the Iowas. I'm not an expert by any means but I'd be surprised if the USN was planning to put 16/50s on the Lexingtons but then went back to the 16/45 for the NCs and SDs.

The North Carolina and South Dakota classes were treaty BBs so they were trying to cram a whole lot of ship into 35,000 tons. I'm sure they would have liked 50 caliber length guns for them but they went for the shorter 45 caliber length guns because they were lighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18,085
[ARGSY]
Members
25,140 posts
19,146 battles
19 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

A nation that has never built and operated a Carrier at all in its history

They at least started one and developed variants of existing aircraft as an air group for it, so you should perhaps be a little more careful with your nevers. Never operated? True. Never built? You're on shaky ground making an absolute statement in that regard.

As far as the main guns are concerned, they've obviously given her Colorado guns for balance reasons - although IIRC the sigma/dispersion is more favourable. And then on top of that, they gave her a full World War 2 refit of secondary and AA armament.

You're meant to look at this ship and say "Colorado guns on a 35kt hull with Benson torpedoes, Baltimore radar and a trade-off of dodgy armour", and decide whether that thumbnail sketch appeals to you. It might not be historically accurate for the Lexingtons as they would have been built sans Washington treaty, but it captures their essence and it's relatable. 

  • Cool 4
  • Meh 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,225
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
31,700 posts
26,591 battles
1 minute ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

They at least started one and developed variants of existing aircraft as an air group for it, so you should perhaps be a little more careful with your nevers. Never operated? True. Never built? You're on shaky ground making an absolute statement in that regard.

They never built a Carrier.  Graf Zeppelin?  Never completed.  When it had to be moved, it had to be TOWED.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
807
[USN]
Members
1,712 posts
21,724 battles
1 hour ago, USMC_FMF said:

I have been doing some reading on the Lexington-Class Battle Cruisers (USS Constellation Designs). A lot of what I have read says it should be armed with 16"/50 guns like the Iowa has (More than likely Mark 7s). Not the 16"/45 that it received. 

More than likely this ship should have 16" Mk 7s. 

Yes. The Lexington class CCs (and 1920 Sodaks) were supposed to use a 16in Mk 2, but in game these ships use Colorado’s older guns. My best reasoning as to why is probably these 16in guns had an 870m/s shell velocity and ballistics closer to Izumo, Slava and Champagne, very un-American like shell properties. Although with Constellation, seeing they want her to play like Champagne or Slava (27mm bow/stern and super cruiser dispersion pattern) the high velocity shells make more sense for her, just dump either the torps and/or the radar to balance it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,662
[WKY20]
Members
4,222 posts
26,429 battles
1 hour ago, Ann_Darrow said:

Constitution or Constellation?  Big difference.

Yes, Constellation was a powerful frigate rated at 38 guns, while Constitution was a much roomier hull and rated at 44 guns, but pierced for over 60 😀

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,662
[WKY20]
Members
4,222 posts
26,429 battles
2 hours ago, CruiserSailor said:

Ha, as if this mostrosity is any like the orginal design as laid down.

Exactly 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,662
[WKY20]
Members
4,222 posts
26,429 battles
28 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

They never built a Carrier.  Graf Zeppelin?  Never completed.  When it had to be moved, it had to be TOWED.

Kind of like Russia’s current CV, when it’s not on fire. 

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,018
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,874 posts
713 battles

Iowa was originally intended to use the MK2 and Mk3 built for the South Dakotas and Lexingtons since they were surplus as those ships were cancelled/converted to carriers. 

 

That ended up not working because nobody thought to actually make sure the guns would fit in the designed turrets, and it was soon discovered after the turrets and barbette's were built that they would not. So the Mk7 was crash-designed specifically to fit Iowa's turrets.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,532
[WKY19]
Beta Testers
2,314 posts
15,180 battles

Is the Constellation any good is what I'm wondering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
213
[ASRN]
Beta Testers
829 posts
7,512 battles
3 minutes ago, Zaydin said:

Is the Constellation any good is what I'm wondering.

Tbh, after a day with it, I don't know.  I can't get a feeling on it.   Trying AA builds, secondary builds, speed builds.... even trying to play her like an bulkier Alaska.  But that's just in co-op.  I'll probably try a few randoms soon.  I can say I don't particularly like the feel of the HE.  AP seems to work a little better.  Torps are useable, but the firing angles seem more geared for kiting, rather than attacking.  I dunno.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
329
[REKTD]
Members
669 posts
11,667 battles
1 hour ago, AJTP89 said:

Really? As a 1920s design I would think she would have the 45s like NC and SD had, the 50 was designed later and put on the Iowas. I'm not an expert by any means but I'd be surprised if the USN was planning to put 16/50s on the Lexingtons but then went back to the 16/45 for the NCs and SDs.

@HazeGrayUnderway has already justly covered your question, l will add that the political and economic scene in the post WW1 time was such that Britain and others were desperate to avoid an expensive naval arms race, so they came up with the treaty limitations that you saw play out with the 16/45 (US) as well as the British 14” decision for KGV. 

As the 16/50 Mark 1 (?) was in the works for Lexington, there was at least one produced, and can still be seen at the Naval Surface Warfare Museum in Washington DC.

Edited by SuperComm4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
528
[ERN]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,322 posts

Ann, use it as a BC...glass cannon. Stay back and snipe. use your speed to relocate and defend/support your team. DO NOT OVER COMMIT. It's not a bad ship, but you have to be very conservative in your game play. If you're facing CA/CL's you can be bold. If you're facing BB's...hold back. That is literally what this ship was designed to do. It's intended purpose under USN doctrine was to suppport CL's & DD's against the enemy CL/DD screens, it was never intended to fight in the line of battle. It's purpose was to destroy CL's/CA's in support of the fleet screening force and to run away from BB's. Just played a game where I did just that and I did very well. Once I was facing enemy fleet BB's I was toast. But it is a fun ship to play...once you understand it's purpose. It's NOT a BB, it's a BC/CC (i.e. a battle cruiser).

 

EDIT: What most people here don't understand is BC doctrine. As originally envisioned by Jackie Fisher BC's were intended to hunt down and destroy enemy commerce raiders. They could destroy any armored cruiser/protected cruisers built. They were fast, and had line of battle guns. What they didn't have was armor. That was sacrificed for speed. Review the British victory of the Battle of the Falkland Islands. That was the only proper use of Battlecruisers in WWI. The Brits made the horrendous mistake of using their BC's as line of battle ships (i.e. battleships--review Brit losses of BC's @ Jutland). They didn't have the armor for that. The German concept (which was historically correct) evolved into the fast battleship...and they always intended their BC's to have enough armor to be able to be used in the line of battle. The US concept of the BC wasn't anti-commerce raider, it was solely intended to support the CL/DD fleet screen. Hence the flimsy armor of the projected Lexington Class BC(CC in US parlance--in other words, that CC designation was to preclude planners from using US battlecruisers in the line of battle, a purpose they were never intended). Hence the CC designation in US Doctrine. If you play this ship as a "super cruiser" then you're playing it correctly. If you're trying to slug it out with BB's of equal or greater tier, you're going to be disappointed. 

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×