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

[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 .

Do you happen to know what happened to the turrets?

 

[Tzoli]

They were put to storage, at least the guns surely as the Iowas at one point designed to carry them.

 

[Firefinder]

]

Do you happen to know what happened to the turrets?

They were put to storage, at least the guns surely as the Iowas at one point designed to carry them.

The Turrets there never made, never got to that point.

The Guns were given to the Army for use on the Coast Defenses, with unsured ones shoved into standard storage for use as barrel replacements as the active ones Liner wore out after 300 or so shots. There more then enough spares, cause the coast defense program got neutered by the Great Depression, by the time the Iowa's were being design. Since the Army was using only like 16 by 1942, with there was to be at LEAST 120 of the things between all twelve ships of the two classes to use them not counting spares. Which was usually two sets per ship, one on and one in storage, so 240 barrels. The 45 (90 counting spares) for the five Iowas was barely a drop in the bucket. But there was that miscommication between BruShips and BruOrd so we got the Mark 7 on the Iowa's instead.

 

[Tzoli]

No. The gun factories did not produce that much! Not even in the USA! Usually one spsre per turret not per barrel!
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk2.phpOnly 71 complete and 44 partial were made by 1922. The Iowas required 36 barrels and some spares which was still whithin the avaiable stock in 1938/39!

You forget that by the Iowas designed only 4 ships were in order not 5 or 6.

 

[Firefinder]

No. The gun factories did not produce that much! Not even in the USA! Usually one spsre per turret not per barrel!
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk2.phpOnly 71 complete and 44 partial were made by 1922. The Iowas required 36 barrels and some spares which was still whithin the avaiable stock in 1938/39!

You forget that by the Iowas designed only 4 ships were in order not 5 or 6.

44 plus 71 is still 115 boss. Especially considering the partials will be all parts made just need assembly as per you source.

Remember each of 6 the Lexington class needed 8 guns and each of tge 6 1920 Sodak need twelve. 6x8 is 48 and 6x12 is 72, combine is 120. That is the lowest number that the Navy could orderd to arm all twelve ships. The US did have 3 active plants able to do this, 2 for Navy and 1 Army. With a Fourth built in Utah in the 1920 to support the Pacific Fleet easier.

And there was 6 Iowas order, 2 in 1939 and 4 in 1940 which in order were the Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Missouri, Kentucky and Illinois. Only the first four were completed, the last two were laid down but scrapped on the ways. 9 guns each ship times 6 is 54 and that is roughly the number the navy said they had in the 1980s when they refited the Iowas.

 

[Tzoli]

No, originally only 4 Iowas were ordered the last two, Illinois and Kentucky were ordered when the navy deemed more battleships were needed. The Montana class started their life as Design BB-65 not BB-67!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Illinois_(BB-65)Here:
Montana preliminary as BB65 from 1940 February way before even the 2nd pair of Iowas ordered:
https://www.shipscribe.com/styles/S-511/images/s-file/s511-11c.htmhttps://www.shipscribe.com/styles/S-511/images/s-file/s511-11.jpg

 

[Aelvir]

]

Do you happen to know what happened to the turrets?

They were put to storage, at least the guns surely as the Iowas at one point designed to carry them.

The Turrets there never made, never got to that point.

The Guns were given to the Army for use on the Coast Defenses, with unsured ones shoved into standard storage for use as barrel replacements as the active ones Liner wore out after 300 or so shots. There more then enough spares, cause the coast defense program got neutered by the Great Depression, by the time the Iowa's were being design. Since the Army was using only like 16 by 1942, with there was to be at LEAST 120 of the things between all twelve ships of the two classes to use them not counting spares. Which was usually two sets per ship, one on and one in storage, so 240 barrels. The 45 (90 counting spares) for the five Iowas was barely a drop in the bucket. But there was that miscommication between BruShips and BruOrd so we got the Mark 7 on the Iowa's instead.

The Lexingtons' twin-turrets were never made, but apparently at least 1 triple-turret was made and a photo exists of the one intended for USS Massachusetts (BB-54), taken at the Bethlehem Steel Factory in the 1920s. (source)

 

[1635yankee]

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? ???

While the Alaskas were arguably battlecruisers, the USN never classified them as such.

 

[Tzoli]

I'm not sure the Lexington turrets were not finished at least some because those battlecruisers were much further developed than the South Dakotas especially USS Massachusetts who was 11% complete when cancelled.

According to my friend, both guns and the barbettes were delivered for the Lexington of which both have photos taken.

 

[Magus]

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?

Those are simply because the Navy decided they don't like single-letter designations.

 

[Tzoli]

Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_...#United_States_Navy_hull_classification_codes

 

[Tybarious]

The Lexingtons' twin-turrets were never made, but apparently at least 1 triple-turret was made and a photo exists of the one intended for USS Massachusetts (BB-54), taken at the Bethlehem Steel Factory in the 1920s. (source)

Another photo

 

[Scott Kenny]

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? ???

Those aren't battlecruisers. They were post-Treaty "cruiser killers"

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.

At some point, the US shifted from single-letter class markers to two-letter class markers.

I think it was around the time of the Armored Cruisers.

So battleships went from B to BB, Cruisers from C to CP or CA (for "Cruiser, Protected" or "Cruiser, Armored") or CL (Cruiser, Light), Destroyers from D to DD, Frigates from F to FF.

Carriers were originally considered among "cruisers", so got CV for "Cruiser, Volantor."

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"

Think this one has been discussed, originally comes from "volantor"

============================================

I'm not really fond of the 4-stack version of the Lexington design. Aesthetically unappealing.

 

[Desertfox]

Every battlecruiser built by the UK, Germany, and Japan had the same gun caliber as that nation's battleships, when built. Therefore, the Lexingtons where battlecruisers and the Alaskas were not, you could argue the Iowas where battlecruisers as well.