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

[Triton]

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)

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington_class_battlecruiser
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/cc1.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cc-1.htm

 

[royabulgaf]

The Lexington-class battlecruisers were the only class of battlecruiser to ever be ordered by the United States Navy.

Then how did the US Navy obtain the Alaska class battlecruisers? ???

 

[Triton]

The Lexington-class battlecruisers were the only class of battlecruiser to ever be ordered by the United States Navy.

Then how did the US Navy obtain the Alaska class battlecruisers? ???

This was a claim made by the Naval Historical Center of the United States Navy. They state that the Alaska class were closer to cruisers than to battleships or battlecruisers and that the CB designation is for "Large Cruiser." Does that mean that the CB designation is for Cruiser, Big and the CC designation is for Cruiser, Combat?
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/cru/cb1cl.htm

 

[red admiral]

Its best not to get too caught up in what is and what isn't a battlecruiser. Its a fairly vague descriptive term what changes meaning with navy and time. So far as I'm aware, I think only the RN used the term in a semi-official way. They just get blurred into the capital ship category.

The Lexingtons themselves are just really really big scout cruisers. They, and the Omahas, are what happens when a navy stops designing cruiser for two decades.

 

[Just call me Ray]

This was a claim made by the Naval Historical Center of the United States Navy. They state that the Alaska class were closer to cruisers than to battleships or battlecruisers and that the CB designation is for "Large Cruiser."

Technically that'd be more accurate anyway. Depending on who you ask, a battlecruiser is indeed a large scout cruiser (as they were originally intended as big-gun scouts) and the Alaskas were well-armored, but fell short of contemporary battleship firepower.

Does that mean that the CB designation is for Cruiser, Big and the CC designation is for Cruiser, Combat?
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/cru/cb1cl.htm

There's no rhyme or reason regarding ship designations at all. Does "BB" mean a ship designed to fire small plastic pellets using compressed gas? Did they arrive at "DD" and "FF" because they were so nice they had to name them twice? "CV" doesn't mean "Carrier Vessel" as popularly believed but comes from the fact that the USN basically regards carriers to be cruisers (at least at first) and the V is there just because - no, really, the "V" was pretty much chosen at random to designate an aviation-related vessel.

The only designations that have any real logic behind them are "BM" (Battle Monitor, I'm sure it'll come into vogue again when the SecDef thinks we need armored floating cheeseboxes for homeland defense) "CL" (Cruiser, Light), "CG" (Cruiser, Guided-missile), "DL" (Destroyer Leader, now obsolete) and "DLG". You can make an argument for "CA" (Cruiser, Armored, and then their successors, heavy cruisers) but I heard the "A" was pretty much chosen at random, too.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Someone in the British Ministry of Defence has acquired the impression that the hull designations are indeed acronyms, hence the Albion-class are referred to as Landing Platform Docks. I'd love to know what they think 'FFG' stands for.

I find that the best way to make sense of them is that they are a hierarchy. B, C, D, F, L and A being the 'top-level' designators, and subsequent letters indicating subdivisions of the major classes. This explains why aircraft carriers are designated CV: they were originally seen as cruisers, with an aviation mission, A already being taken by armoured/heavy cruisers (alternately, volante, from the French for 'flying').

The repeated designators BB, DD and FF spring, if my memory serves me, from a decision in the 1920s that all hull designators should be two letters, and the then-existing battleships, designated B, and destroyers (D), just had the initial letter doubled up. Frigates seem to have copied this logic when they came along in their present incarnation.

 

[Triton]

Beginning in 1948 we started getting three and four letter ship designations for the United States Navy. Unfortunately, meanings in designation abbreviations are no longer consistent in the designation system and the meanings of the designation abbreviations have changed over time.

 

[smurf]

http://everything2.com/title/Classes+of+Ships+in+the+United+States+Navy
http://nhseacadets.mainstream.net/usn_ship_designations

 

[royabulgaf]

Beginning in 1948 we started getting three and four letter ship designations for the United States Navy. Unfortunately, meanings in designation abbreviations are no longer consistent in the designation system and the meanings of the designation abbreviations have changed over time.

I think the designation problem also stems from WWII, when the USN had thousands of ships all with different purposes. Cruisers, such as they are, are no longer semi-capital scouting vessels. Destroyers are the default combat vessel. Cruisers are broadly, lengthened destroyers acting as command vessels, and frigates smaller destroyers for more or less coastal work. Throw in the CVN and assault carriers, and you pretty much have the surface fleet.

 

[Triton]

Artist impression of seven funnel configuration of Lexington-class battlecruiser. Painting published in unknown Japanese language publication.
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/bk/NWS/United_States_Navy/index.html

Artist impression of Lexington-class battlecruiser. Painting by F Muller circa 1916.

 

[able]

Niagara-Lexingtong with Triple turrets

 

[Sherman Tank]

The "Niagara" is a fake design that never existed.

 

[Firefinder]

The "Niagara" is a fake design that never existed.

From a certain point of view Yes the Niagara never existed.
But there were a few three barrel four turreted designs for the Lexs.

Link US Design Studies. http://www.shipscribe.com/styles/S-584/albums/S584.htm

 

[Archibald]

CV" doesn't mean "Carrier Vessel" as popularly believed but comes from the fact that the USN basically regards carriers to be cruisers (at least at first) and the V is there just because - no, really, the "V" was pretty much chosen at random to designate an aviation-related vessel.

Doesn't the letter V come from "heaVier" related to "lighter / heavier than air" - that is, balloon &blimps vs aircraft ?
I heard this in relation to the F/A-18 Hornet RFP in the 70's - VFAX.

CV = Cruiser + "heaVier than air"

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I thought it came from a French word but I might be wrong.

 

[TomS]

Doesn't the letter V come from "heaVier" related to "lighter / heavier than air"

I thought it came from a French word but I might be wrong.

I have never found an official explanation (nor has anyone else, to judge by how often the question comes up without a definitive answer). But the most commonly proposed explanation for the aircraft type designations (adopted in 1920) is "Lighter-than-air = Zeppelin = Z" and "Heavier-than-air = volplane = V." Volplane is a French word for gliding or soaring, and was used into the 1920s to refer to any lift-supported aircraft. (It has since been limited to gliders.)

Plucking the V from the middle of "heaVier-than-air" would have been odd in 1920. Why not H, given that helicopters were as yet unheard of?

Here is General Order 541, which establishes the various designations (note that aircraft designations were in the same scheme as ship designations at this time):

General Order No. 541 (1920) Standard Nomemclature for Naval Vessels

Navy Department, Office of Naval Operations, Washington, D. C., July 17, 1920 STANDARD NOMENCLATURE FOR NAVAL VESSELS 1. In order to provide a standard nomenclature for types and classes of vessels comprised in the United States Navy, as well as a standard system of identification numbers which...

www.history.navy.mil

And here is one source discussing the supposed derivation:

United States Naval Aviation, 1910-1995

"This work is designed to provide naval personnel, historians, and aviation enthusiasts with a general background on Naval Aviation history. It highlights the significant events and developments that shaped Naval Aviation from 1910 to 1995, rather than providing a detailed treatise of particular...

books.google.com

And

 

[Archibald]

volplaner — Wiktionnaire, le dictionnaire libre

fr.wiktionary.org

How about that...

"vol plané" as "glided flight" - I knew.

But that VERB and the english word derived from it - never heard about it before.

volplane - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

I have never found an official explanation (nor has anyone else, to judge by how often the question comes up without a definitive answer).

But the most commonly proposed explanation for the aircraft type designations (adopted in 1920) is "Lighter-than-air = Zeppelin = Z" and "Heavier-than-air = volplane = V."

Volplane is a French word for gliding or soaring, and was used into the 1920s to refer to any lift-supported aircraft. (It has since been limited to gliders.)

Plucking the V from the middle of "heaVier-than-air" would have been odd in 1920. Why not H, given that helicopters were as yet unheard of?

I fully agree with that statement.

Volplaner, really, has a definite Harry Potter vibe - I don't know the original english word used by Rowlings, but in french it was translated as "transplaner" (the teleportation-like thing Doby does when Hermione is tortured by Bellatrix at the end of Deadly hollows, part 1).

 

[Yellow Palace]

I have never found an official explanation (nor has anyone else, to judge by how often the question comes up without a definitive answer).

I'm fairly sure that the US Naval History and Heritage Command has looked into it and been unable to find a firm answer. The volplane logic makes most sense to me, but I'm not entirely convinced.

Aircraft serial numbers being used similarly to hull numbers - with VF, VB etc having separate sequences - would be an entertaining, if slightly silly, designation system. There's even precedent in the way that rigid airships - but not non-rigids - were handled.

 

[TomS]

I have never found an official explanation (nor has anyone else, to judge by how often the question comes up without a definitive answer).

I'm fairly sure that the US Naval History and Heritage Command has looked into it and been unable to find a firm answer. The volplane logic makes most sense to me, but I'm not entirely convinced.

Aircraft serial numbers being used similarly to hull numbers - with VF, VB etc having separate sequences - would be an entertaining, if slightly silly, designation system. There's even precedent in the way that rigid airships - but not non-rigids - were handled.

Yes, there seems to be no surviving correspondence around the issuance of GO541 to explain any of the choices.

For reference, GO541 was issued in preparation for the issuance of the Ship Data Book, a compilation of specs for all the Navy's ships (and aircraft). It makes for interesting reading if you're into that sort of thing...

Ships' Data, U.S. Naval Vessels

books.google.com

 

[TomS]

There is no such word as "volplane" in French, sorry. You might mean "vol plané", witch are two words, a noun and an adjective. Doubtful this combination is the source for V in CV.

OK, it was an English word that was derived from the French phrase "vol plané". Better?

Now, given that the English word volplane exists, and was apparently used to refer to fixed-wing aircraft*, why is it so unlikely that the US Navy derived its term this way? It's pretty clear that whoever drafted GO541 was no expert in aircraft.

* it also had other uses -- the terminology of aviation was evolving rapidly at the time

 

[Archibald]

volplaaaaane... sounds like that old hit from the Gipsy kings... ni pinto di blue...

 

[TomS]

There is no such word as "volplane" in French, sorry. You might mean "vol plané", witch are two words, a noun and an adjective. Doubtful this combination is the source for V in CV.

OK, it was an English word that was derived from the French phrase "vol plané". Better?

Now, given that the English word volplane exists, and was apparently used to refer to fixed-wing aircraft*, why is it so unlikely that the US Navy derived its term this way? It's pretty clear that whoever drafted GO541 was no expert in aircraft.

* it also had other uses -- the terminology of aviation was evolving rapidly at the time

"Better"? What a strange reaction to a factual remark.

It was short. I could have said "is that more accurate?"

Point is, English speakers did use the word "volplane," which is derived from the French phrase. And that word may well have been the source for the use of V for heavier-than-air.

 

[Antonio]

Could you please go back to the topic?

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/iwd7m8

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/iwd7m8/model_of_battlecruiser_uss_lexington_showing_how/

 

[Julio Garay Terrazas]

I found this image in an old review Aviation & Marine International from March 1976.

 

[Tankshooter0115]

I find reference in the Globalsecurity link that the Saratoga might have had its 8 16in guns. I might be miss reading the article so could someone verify this. "The Saratoga, of which the keel was laid on 25 September 1920, on the longest of the covered ways, was to have a length of 874 feet, with a beam of 105 feet, depth of 56 feet and draft of 31 feet. Her armament included eight 16-inch guns, and she was to carry a crew of 1,165. This battle cruiser is one of six, authorized in 1917, which were placed under construction in government and private yards, and were the largest and most powerful type of fighting craft built to date."

 

[Tzoli]

I don't understand your question. You question the armament of the Lexington class Battlecruiser USS Saratoga?

 

[Firefinder]

I find reference in the Globalsecurity link that the Saratoga might have had its 8 16in guns. I might be miss reading the article so could someone verify this. "The Saratoga, of which the keel was laid on 25 September 1920, on the longest of the covered ways, was to have a length of 874 feet, with a beam of 105 feet, depth of 56 feet and draft of 31 feet. Her armament included eight 16-inch guns, and she was to carry a crew of 1,165. This battle cruiser is one of six, authorized in 1917, which were placed under construction in government and private yards, and were the largest and most powerful type of fighting craft built to date."

Saratoga had the guns in that there was 8 set aside for her. Ditto for the Lexington.

But they were never installed cause the Washington Naval treaty caused her to be converted to a carry before they could get CLOSE to that point.

 

[Dilandu]

I pondered many times, would a pair of Lexington-class battlecruisers be a better addition to USN than, say, all its 12-inch battleships? I.e. what if USN would be able to secure the right to complete a pair of Lexington-class during naval limitation talks - maybe with reduced main guns, say, with 14-inch barrels, to avoid annoying others - by agreeing to scrap all their remaining 12-inch battleships?

 

[Tzoli]

That is alternative history but Japan would had demanded to finish either the two Tosas or two of the Amagis and the fleet carrier development history would had initiated later. I doubt the USN would went back to 14" knowing Japan building and ordering a large number of 41cm armed capital ships!

 

[Dilandu]

That is alternative history but Japan would had demanded to finish either the two Tosas or two of the Amagis and the fleet carrier development history would had initiated later. I doubt the USN would went back to 14" knowing Japan building and ordering a large number of 41cm armed capital ships!

Well, US could argue, that they are the only major power that totally lacked any fast capital ships, while UK have nine (five QE fast battleships, and four battlecruisers, counting "Tiger"), and Japan have six (two "Nagato" fast battleships, and four "Kongo"-class). The reduction of main guns to 14-inch looks like a good idea to avoid exactly such demands from Japanese.

 

[Yellow Palace]

That is alternative history but Japan would had demanded to finish either the two Tosas or two of the Amagis and the fleet carrier development history would had initiated later. I doubt the USN would went back to 14" knowing Japan building and ordering a large number of 41cm armed capital ships!

It's vaguely plausible, IMO, with something like the following sequence of events:

• The three additional HOOD class -are sufficiently far advanced that they're on the table at Washington.
• The same 3-3-2 ratio of post-Jutland ships is agreed, but with the caveat that these ships - and only these ships - may be 40,000 tons (ish) standard already under construction
• The RN completes the two extra HOODs - say HOWE and RODNEY - either scrapping the fourth or converting it to an aircraft carrier.
• The USN determines that due to their speed, the LEXINGTONs are more valuable than the SOUTH DAKOTAs, completing three as battlecruisers and reordering another two as aircraft carriers.
• The IJN probably builds the two TOSAs instead of the NAGATOs - it'd be one or the other under these terms.

This is somewhat plausible, but I suspect the USN would rather have three SOUTH DAKOTAs. They were further advanced, and the USN placed a lot of value in having the strongest possible battle line.

 

[Tzoli]

The IJN had the two Nagatos commissioned (Nagato 1920 November, Mutsu 1921 October) by 1921 November (WNT held between 1921 November and 1922 February) The next four ships of most advanced state of construction was Amagi, Akagi, Kaga and Tosa. Amagi would be damaged beyond repair (Or very very costly repair) in 1923 at the Great Kanto Earthquake except her construction was sped up and would be launched before it.

 

[Yellow Palace]

The IJN had the two Nagatos commissioned (Nagato 1920 November, Mutsu 1921 October) by 1921 November (WNT held between 1921 November and 1922 February)

In which case, the NAGATOs would be it for them - and they'd kick up a stink against this proposal for that very reason. Come to think of it, the US would lose the three WEST VIRGINIAs, of which one was commissioned and two very nearly so; in short, it's a total non-starter.

 

[Firefinder]

The IJN had the two Nagatos commissioned (Nagato 1920 November, Mutsu 1921 October) by 1921 November (WNT held between 1921 November and 1922 February)

In which case, the NAGATOs would be it for them - and they'd kick up a stink against this proposal for that very reason. Come to think of it, the US would lose the three WEST VIRGINIAs, of which one was commissioned and two very nearly so; in short, it's a total non-starter.

You mean Colorado class boss...

With 2 of the 4 being completely finished by the time of WNT.

And honestly?

The US may just Settled for finishing the Last Colorado, the Washington, in exchange for dropping 2 of the 12 inch ships. Since of the 13 big battleline ships, 6 Lexingtons CC/6 Sodaks and last Colorado, Washington was the Furthest along and has a full class with her, plus falls nicely into the US Standard battleline.

Which I bet will be far more...

Palatable for the UK and Japan. Cause that way, while the US has more 16 inch gun ships they have LESS battleship overall.

 

[1Big Rich]

The IJN had the two Nagatos commissioned (Nagato 1920 November, Mutsu 1921 October) by 1921 November (WNT held between 1921 November and 1922 February)

In which case, the NAGATOs would be it for them - and they'd kick up a stink against this proposal for that very reason. Come to think of it, the US would lose the three WEST VIRGINIAs, of which one was commissioned and two very nearly so; in short, it's a total non-starter.

You mean Colorado class boss...

"West Virginias" was what the Washington Treaty called them. I have no idea why.

The initial draft of the treaty had the US keeping Maryland, Japan Nagato and RN's premier ship would have been Hood. Not 16in armed but so far ourside the qualitative 35,000 ton limit she was considered an equal. When Japan refused to give up Mutsu, paid for by public subscription from school children, the RN was allowed to build two new battleships and the USN was allowed to keep two more "West Virginias".

Regards,

 

[Julio Garay Terrazas]

I get this picture in the spanish language book "Cruceros de todo el mundo desde sus origenes hasta nuestro dias", author Gino Galuppini. Published by Espasa-Calpe, S.A. Madrid (Spain), 1984.

 

[Tzoli]

You guys maybe don't know about the Springstyle books?

US Navy Spring Styles Books 1911/1944

U.S Navy Spring Styles Books (1911-25 and 1939-44) containing drawings of potential ship designs for the Navy's leadership.

www.shipscribe.com

Lexington part:

Spring Styles Book # 1 (1911-1925), Lot S-584 -- Battle Cruiser Preliminary Design Drawings

 

[David Chessum]

That is alternative history but Japan would had demanded to finish either the two Tosas or two of the Amagis and the fleet carrier development history would had initiated later. I doubt the USN would went back to 14" knowing Japan building and ordering a large number of 41cm armed capital ships!

Well, US could argue, that they are the only major power that totally lacked any fast capital ships, while UK have nine (five QE fast battleships, and four battlecruisers, counting "Tiger"), and Japan have six (two "Nagato" fast battleships, and four "Kongo"-class). The reduction of main guns to 14-inch looks like a good idea to avoid exactly such demands from Japanese.

The US was not aware of the speed of the Nagatos at that time, so may not have considered them fast capital ships.

Regards

David

 

[Tankshooter0115]

The Lexington-class battlecruisers were the only class of battlecruiser to ever be ordered by the United States Navy.

Then how did the US Navy obtain the Alaska class battlecruisers? ???

This was a claim made by the Naval Historical Center of the United States Navy. They state that the Alaska class were closer to cruisers than to battleships or battlecruisers and that the CB designation is for "Large Cruiser." Does that mean that the CB designation is for Cruiser, Big and the CC designation is for Cruiser, Combat?

I find reference in the Globalsecurity link that the Saratoga might have had its 8 16in guns. I might be miss reading the article so could someone verify this. "The Saratoga, of which the keel was laid on 25 September 1920, on the longest of the covered ways, was to have a length of 874 feet, with a beam of 105 feet, depth of 56 feet and draft of 31 feet. Her armament included eight 16-inch guns, and she was to carry a crew of 1,165. This battle cruiser is one of six, authorized in 1917, which were placed under construction in government and private yards, and were the largest and most powerful type of fighting craft built to date."

Saratoga had the guns in that there was 8 set aside for her. Ditto for the Lexington.

But they were never installed cause the Washington Naval treaty caused her to be converted to a carry before they could get CLOSE to that point.

ok thank you very much for the clarification .