Lexington Class Battlecruiser (CC-1 through CC-6)

[lordroel]

Lexington Class Battlecruiser (CC-1 through CC-6)

The Lexington-class battlecruisers were the only class of battlecruiser to ever be ordered by the United States Navy. Six were planned (CC-1 through CC-6) as part of the massive 1916 building program, but their construction was repeatedly postponed in favor of escort ships and anti-submarine vessels. During these delays, the class was redesigned several times.



Original (1916) Battle Cruiser Numbers 1 - 4 design characteristics:

Displacement: 34,300 tons
Dimensions: 874' (length overall); 90'11" (maximum beam)
Powerplant: 180,000 horsepower steam turbines with electric drive, producing a 35 knot maximum speed
Armament (Main Battery): Ten 14"/50 guns in two twin (turret #s 1 & 4) and two triple (turret #s 2 & 3) turrets
Armament (Secondary Battery): Eighteen 5"/51 guns in single mountings (nine guns on each side of the ship)



Definitive (1919) Lexington class (Battle Cruiser Numbers 1 - 6) design characteristics:

Displacement: 43,500 tons
Dimensions: 874' (length overall); 105'5" (maximum beam)
Powerplant: 180,000 horsepower steam turbines with electric drive, producing a 33.25 knot maximum speed
Armament (Main Battery): Eight 16"/50 guns in four twin turrets
Armament (Secondary Battery): Sixteen 6"/53 guns in single mountings (eight guns on each side of the ship)

Paintings of the Lexington-class battlecruiser original planned configuration and definitive design



The Lexington class consisted of six ships, under construction at four locations:

Lexington (CC-1). Keel laid at Quincy, Massachusetts, January 1921. Became the aircraft carrier CV-2.
Constellation (CC-2). Keel laid at Newport News, Virginia, August 1920. Cancelled and scrapped.
Saratoga (CC-3). Keel laid at Camden, New Jersey, September 1920. Became the aircraft carrier CV-3.
Ranger (CC-4). Keel laid at Newport News, Virginia, June 1921. Cancelled and scrapped.
Constitution (CC-5). Keel laid at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 1920. Cancelled and scrapped.
United States (CC-6). Keel laid at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 1920. Cancelled and scrapped.

While four of the ships were eventually cancelled and scrapped on their building ways in 1922 to comply with mandates outlined by the Washington Naval Treaty, two (Lexington and Saratoga) were converted into the United States' first fleet carriers.

YouTube (USS Lexington - Battlecruisers)

[oscssw]

I'd say the decision to complete Lady Lex and Sara as carriers was absolutely the right decision.
Battlecruisers were already a Dinosaurs when they were laid down on 8 January 1921. In the short run the "Fast Battleship" had already made them obsolescent and in the long run the Carrier made them obsolete.
The USN really got our money's worth from these two CG conversions. These two ships, along with the old "Covered Wagon" CV-1 Langley were used to write the book on carrier SOPs and refine carrier tactics. Being operational in the fleet gave a lot of future leaders in WW II the experience we desperately needed to take on the IJN. The annual Fleet Exercises featured these two and tested the practicality of the emerging carrier doctrine that would prove vital in WW II.

Too bad Lady Lex was sunk early in the war but her loss at Coral sea was more than compensated for by the Strategic importance of that sea battle. Sara really did yeoman service throughout the war. Her tough 7-5 inch armor
and TDS (torpedo defense system) CG hull saved her more than once from even the dreaded Long Lance torp (type 95) ship killer. At Iwo Jima she also survive 5 bomb hits at in three minutes. It took two atomic bombs to sink her.
Yup money well spent.

[lordroel]

Apr 16, 2022 18:49:48 GMT oscssw said:

I'd say the decision to complete Lady Lex and Sara as carriers was absolutely the right decision.
Battlecruisers were already a Dinosaurs when they were laid down on 8 January 1921. In the short run the "Fast Battleship" had already made them obsolescent and in the long run the Carrier made them obsolete.
The USN really got our money's worth from these two CG conversions. These two ships, along with the old "Covered Wagon" CV-1 Langley were used to write the book on carrier SOPs and refine carrier tactics. Being operational in the fleet gave a lot of future leaders in WW II the experience we desperately needed to take on the IJN. The annual Fleet Exercises featured these two and tested the practicality of the emerging carrier doctrine that would prove vital in WW II.

Too bad Lady Lex was sunk early in the war but her loss at Coral sea was more than compensated for by the Strategic importance of that sea battle. Sara really did yeoman service throughout the war. Her tough 7-5 inch armor
and TDS (torpedo defense system) CG hull saved her more than once from even the dreaded Long Lance torp (type 95) ship killer. At Iwo Jima she also survive 5 bomb hits at in three minutes. It took two atomic bombs to sink her.
Yup money well spent.

Well they did their part during the Pacific War, to bad USS Saratoga (CV-3) was not save as a museum ship, but in those days saving a ship for the future was not as well establish as it was know.

[simon darkshade]

Where do you draw the line in terms of museum ships? For me, it lies on the other side of Enterprise but does not encompass Saratoga.

On the particular attributes of the battlecruiser, you’ve left out their most obsolete feature - their lack of armour protection. A 5-7” belt is good for a Washington imposed tinclad, but not as a BC/CC. They were well behind even Hood; the G3s put them to shame in the shade. Getting them converted to carriers was an excellent stroke.

[stevep]

Apr 17, 2022 9:12:24 GMT simon darkshade said:

Where do you draw the line in terms of museum ships? For me, it lies on the other side of Enterprise but does not encompass Saratoga.

On the particular attributes of the battlecruiser, you’ve left out their most obsolete feature - their lack of armour protection. A 5-7” belt is good for a Washington imposed tinclad, but not as a BC/CC. They were well behind even Hood; the G3s put them to shame in the shade. Getting them converted to carriers was an excellent stroke.

  simon darkshade,

  I think that's the point oscssw, was making in terms of them being made obsolete in the short term by the fast battleship such as the G3's which unfortunately weren't completed.   Then again in the longer term the carriers made both obsolete in most circumstances by the 1940's.

  Steve

[1bigrich]

Recalling Johnfrench's piece over on the BC Board about battlecruisers and Battleships

www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/battle-cruisers-fast-battleships-t8622.html

in Fisher's terms, the Lexingtons as conceived fall into the "1st Rate, Light Fast" category, just as Renown does.

By comparison, G3, like Hood, would fall into the "1st Rate, Heavy Fast" category.

As we discussed at the time, the scale is obviously a sliding one, as new construction, absent limitations like a treaty system cause ships to fall in rate at least.

The USN was obsessed with the threat the Kongos represented, and Lexington as a battlecruiser has to viewed in the light of an early response to that threat. The numbers represent superiority in that any two at any time could be yard hands for maintenance, and the size is a clear attempt to catch as well as outgun them. And as Stuart Slade so succinctly said, navies are under no obligation to fight fair.

Also, World War I wreaked havoc on the USN's structure. The USN really needed scouts, (hence so many predreadnoughts doing cruiser functions like convoy escort, but I digress) but the war caused an enormous surge in destroyer construction, as well as delaying capital ships. As with the South Dakota (BB-49) class battleships, by the time they were laid down, there were already better options in light of war experience, but those were not authorized nor developed at the time. As Senior Chief, says, it is probably best that they were taken up as carriers instead of completing as originally intended.

My thoughts,

[lordroel]

Apr 17, 2022 19:48:04 GMT 1bigrich said:

in Fisher's terms, the Lexingtons as conceived fall into the "1st Rate, Light Fast" category, just as Renown does.

So a Lexington Class would be considered a light class battlecruiser.

[1bigrich]

Apr 18, 2022 15:36:29 GMT lordroel said:

So a Lexington Class would be considered a light class battlecruiser.

I wouldn't quite say that.   In Fisher's terms, "Light" referred more to protection than what we would more commonly think of as 'light' warships, like 'light cruisers' or 'Light carriers'. 

The Lexington BCs as designed had a displacement very close to Hood.   They just represent different sides of the same coin.    We could well say Hood prioritized firepower, protection and speed, while Lexington prioritized firepower, speed and protection.    They're both very fast, however. 

Now if ships like N3 or Japan's No. 13 with 18in guns are completed, they might fall to "Second Rate, Heavy, Fast" and "Second Rate, Light, Fast" respectively.

My thoughts,

[lordroel]

Apr 18, 2022 21:00:05 GMT 1bigrich said:

Apr 18, 2022 15:36:29 GMT lordroel said:

So a Lexington Class would be considered a light class battlecruiser.

I wouldn't quite say that.   In Fisher's terms, "Light" referred more to protection than what we would more commonly think of as 'light' warships, like 'light cruisers' or 'Light carriers'. 

The Lexington BCs as designed had a displacement very close to Hood.   They just represent different sides of the same coin.    We could well say Hood prioritized firepower, protection and speed, while Lexington prioritized firepower, speed and protection.    They're both very fast, however. 

Now if ships like N3 or Japan's No. 13 with 18in guns are completed, they might fall to "Second Rate, Heavy, Fast" and "Second Rate, Light, Fast" respectively.

My thoughts,

But does the classification , light, medium and heavy battle cruiser exist.

[stevep]

Apr 19, 2022 16:28:52 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 18, 2022 21:00:05 GMT 1bigrich said:

I wouldn't quite say that.   In Fisher's terms, "Light" referred more to protection than what we would more commonly think of as 'light' warships, like 'light cruisers' or 'Light carriers'. 

The Lexington BCs as designed had a displacement very close to Hood.   They just represent different sides of the same coin.    We could well say Hood prioritized firepower, protection and speed, while Lexington prioritized firepower, speed and protection.    They're both very fast, however. 

Now if ships like N3 or Japan's No. 13 with 18in guns are completed, they might fall to "Second Rate, Heavy, Fast" and "Second Rate, Light, Fast" respectively.

My thoughts,

But does the classification , light, medium and heavy battle cruiser exist.

  Not historically.  Its a set of definitions developed by a poster - Johnfrench, link given in 1bigrich's post - to try and clarify their capacities.

[1bigrich]

Apr 20, 2022 19:24:43 GMT stevep said:

  Not historically.  Its a set of definitions developed by a poster - Johnfrench, link given in 1bigrich's post - to try and clarify their capacities.

Correct. Steve.   

John's point was in "Fisherspeak", the Admiral classified ships by three categories:  Rate, Protection and Speed.   

As we said in the BC Board thread, Rate is obviously a sliding scale.   For example, when completed, Iron Duke or Nevada would be a "First Rate. Heavy, Slow" capital ship.  With the completion of ships like Queen Elizabeth, Nagato or Maryland they would fall to "Second Rate, Heavy, Slow".      If ships like South Dakota (BB-49), N3 or the IJN's No 13 design were completed, they would fall to "Third Rate, Heavy, Slow"

Speed might be a sliding scale as well as technology progresses, though less obvious than Rate.      I'm thinking specifically of the first Invincible BCs being "fast" at 25 knots, yet they might be considered "slow" with the completion of ships like Hood or G3 or Amagi. 

So the "Fisherspeak" hierarchy provides more of a 'snapshot' comparison of capital ships at any given time rather than an enduring, long-term comparison.  

My thoughts,