|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 2, 2017 17:37:22 GMT -6
THIS IS A RECONFIGURATION OF A LEXINGTON CLASS BATTLECRUISER WHICH WAS REVISED IN 1922 WITH NO WASHINGTON NAVAL TREATY BUT WITH BUDGET CUTS AND NEW NAVAL DOCTRINE.
THE SPEED HAS BEEN REVISED DOWN TO 32 KNOTS AND HORSEPOWER IS NOW REALISTIC WITH OTHER SHIPS OF THE TIME. DECK ARMOR IS NOW 5 IN. WHICH MATCHES THE OTHER CAPITAL SHIPS THE US NAVY IS BUILDING.
THE TERIARY GUNS HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
WE ARE STILL GETTING GOOD PERFORMANCE FROM HER IN SPEED, ESPECIALLY IF WE INSTALL A DUAL RUDDER SYSTEM TO IMPROVE TURNING RADIUS.
THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE COULD AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUILT. THE US NAVY AND THE WAR COLLEGE WOULD HAVE TESTED AND REALISED THAT WITH THE INCREASED RANGE OF GUNNERY, NO MATTER HOW FAST A SHIP IS, IT IS VULNERABLE TO PLUNGING FIRE. THIS SHIP WOULD HAVE SURVIVED BETTER.
USS Lexington, USA Battlecruiser laid down 1922
Displacement: 30,823 t light; 33,016 t standard; 34,448 t normal; 35,594 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep) (874.68 ft / 850.00 ft) x 91.00 ft x (31.30 / 32.05 ft) (266.60 m / 259.08 m) x 27.74 m x (9.54 / 9.77 m)
Armament: 8 - 16.00" / 406 mm 45.0 cal guns - 2,065.46lbs / 936.88kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1922 Model 4 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread 14 - 6.00" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.92lbs / 49.41kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1922 Model 14 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread Weight of broadside 18,049 lbs / 8,187 kg
Armour: - Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg) Main: 5.00" / 127 mm 382.50 ft / 116.59 m 16.00 ft / 4.88 m Ends: Unarmoured Main Belt covers 69 % of normal length Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max) Main: 6.00" / 152 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 5.00" / 127 mm
- Box over machinery & magazines: 5.00" / 127 mm Forecastle: 5.00" / 127 mm Quarter deck: 5.00" / 127 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 5.00" / 127 mm, Aft 5.00" / 127 mm
Machinery: Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Electric cruising motors plus geared drives, 4 shafts, 140,868 shp / 105,088 Kw = 32.00 kts Range 10,000nm at 10.00 kts Bunker at max displacement = 2,579 tons
Complement: 1,263 - 1,643
Cost: £9.163 million / $36.653 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement: Armament: 2,907 tons, 8.4 % - Guns: 2,907 tons, 8.4 % Armour: 7,224 tons, 21.0 % - Belts: 1,356 tons, 3.9 % - Armament: 1,534 tons, 4.5 % - Armour Deck: 4,106 tons, 11.9 % - Conning Towers: 228 tons, 0.7 % Machinery: 4,778 tons, 13.9 % Hull, fittings & equipment: 15,913 tons, 46.2 % Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,626 tons, 10.5 % Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability: Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 48,721 lbs / 22,100 Kg = 23.8 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 3.2 torpedoes Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08 Metacentric height 5.1 ft / 1.5 m Roll period: 17.0 seconds Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 73 % - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 1.58 Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.88
Hull form characteristics: Hull has a flush deck, an extended bulbous bow and large transom stern Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.498 / 0.503 Length to Beam Ratio: 9.34 : 1 'Natural speed' for length: 33.46 kts Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 % Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 39 Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 33.00 degrees Stern overhang: -20.00 ft / -6.10 m Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length): Fore end, Aft end - Forecastle: 30.00 %, 38.00 ft / 11.58 m, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m - Forward deck: 30.00 %, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m - Aft deck: 25.00 %, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m - Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m - Average freeboard: 32.72 ft / 9.97 m
Ship space, strength and comments: Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 89.0 % - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 258.2 % Waterplane Area: 53,494 Square feet or 4,970 Square metres Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 107 % Structure weight / hull surface area: 192 lbs/sq ft or 937 Kg/sq metre Hull strength (Relative): - Cross-sectional: 0.92 - Longitudinal: 2.19 - Overall: 1.00 Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space Excellent accommodation and workspace room Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 15, 2017 18:36:42 GMT -6
So for a lark, I decided to put the specifications for the Lexington-Class Battlecruiser into the SAI Ship Designer. As I was putting the specifications in, I noticed that the Lexington-Class Battlecruisers were only going to have a 7 Inch Armored Belt 9Ranging from 5 inches to 7 inches. This made me wonder how successful they would have been if built as battlecruisers. While the battlecruiser concept (a fast ship with battleship guns to hunt down enemy cruisers) does have a deal of merit (The Battle of the Falklands confirmed how effective they were), I think that there would have been too much temptation to try and use them in the battle-line (which tended to not work out for them). Given that they were supposed to be capable of 33 knots and have 16 inch guns, perhaps the plan was to simply have them stay out of range and hammer the enemy from afar. However I keep coming back to the armor: how would they have stood up against other modern battlecruisers (Renown-Class and the like)? That 7 inch belt wouldn't be very durable, but with 33 knots and 16 inch guns, they could have stood off out of the enemy's effective range.
I think the fatal flaw of the battlecruiser concept (at least the Anglo-American version) is that like most cruisers she can't stand-up to her own guns. So the battlecruiser works great when everyone else has only armored cruisers but what Lord Fisher never considered is what happens when the other guys build their own? As well, for all of his vision, he never seems to have considered the endgame of Pollen and Dreyer's works which would be fire control calculators fast enough to solve the rate of change problem so that no amount of speed would serve as armor. Battlecruisers are too expensive to be that vulnerable. The problem is if the other guys build one you have to have them yourself (assuming that fast battleships and effective air attacks aren't a thing yet). I think if the Lexingtons had been built as battlecruisers they would have been horrible failures.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Aug 15, 2017 20:09:58 GMT -6
I agree with what you say, I think that these things would have been disasters waiting to happen. Besides, the decision to go with such thin armor was near-criminal when the USN had the advantage of seeing what happened at Jutland.
I think the Problem with Baron Fisher's concept of the battlecruiser as something to fight armored cruisers (independent of fast BBs and air power) is that eventually the guns began to outstrip what was really needed for the job. I mean, a 12 inch shell would kill an armored/heavy cruiser just as well as 16 inch shell would. That's why I think that the CBs built during World War II by the USN were probably about as close to a perfect battlecruiser as anyone ever came (even though they were not battlecruisers). Those 12 inch guns were enough to accomplish the task of killing enemy cruisers, yet small enough that no one would try and use them in the line-of-battle (at least not in the 1940s).
Problem is that if one country built a big gun BC, than the other side had to up-gun as well.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 15, 2017 20:46:36 GMT -6
I don't think I could agree with you because we have not determined who the US's primary enemy might be. We know it would not have been France, Germany or Italy. It is very doubtful that it would have been the English although we cannot eliminate them. The only answer is the Japanese Navy.
So what proof do we have that it would have been the IJN? Well, not actual proof, but we do have Fleet Problems starting in February 18-22, 1923 in the Caribbean. Who was the adversary? That's right, at the time they were titled "Black" but later they would be Orange. The next three Fleet Problems were in 1924, January. Who was the adversary? Black or Japan. The problems go on until 1940. All against the Japanese. Now eventually the setting moved from the Caribbean to around Hawaii, once Pearl Harbor had been upgraded as a Fleet anchorage. But the enemy was always the same; Japan.
So, when would the war occur? What about around the time of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria on September 18,1931. What would the IJN have looked like in 1932?
Well, in battleships, she would have had the 18 year old Yamashiro and Fuso, Ise and Hyuga of the same age, Nagato and Mutsu, and the four Kongo's if their modernization was completed. It was started on Kongo in 1928 and not finished until 1931. The same goes for Hei, Kirishima and Haruna. So, there is the IJN battle fleet.
I leave it to you to verify whether your supposition is correct or not.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Aug 15, 2017 21:53:01 GMT -6
I don't think I could agree with you because we have not determined who the US's primary enemy might be. We know it would not have been France, Germany or Italy. It is very doubtful that it would have been the English although we cannot eliminate them. The only answer is the Japanese Navy. So what proof do we have that it would have been the IJN? Well, not actual proof, but we do have Fleet Problems starting in February 18-22, 1923 in the Caribbean. Who was the adversary? That's right, at the time they were titled "Black" but later they would be Orange. The next three Fleet Problems were in 1924, January. Who was the adversary? Black or Japan. The problems go on until 1940. All against the Japanese. Now eventually the setting moved from the Caribbean to around Hawaii, once Pearl Harbor had been upgraded as a Fleet anchorage. But the enemy was always the same; Japan. So, when would the war occur? What about around the time of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria on September 18,1931. What would the IJN have looked like in 1932? Well, in battleships, she would have had the 18 year old Yamashiro and Fuso, Ise and Hyuga of the same age, Nagato and Mutsu, and the four Kongo's if their modernization was completed. It was started on Kongo in 1928 and not finished until 1931. The same goes for Hei, Kirishima and Haruna. So, there is the IJN battle fleet. I leave it to you to verify whether your supposition is correct or not. Thanks for providing this food for thought! I'm going to take a bit of time to consider it and form an answer.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Aug 16, 2017 8:32:29 GMT -6
and Kongo's were built as battlecrusiers
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 16, 2017 10:03:32 GMT -6
and Kongo's were built as battlecrusiers I will pass along this bit of information. The Kongo's were designed to repel the enemy's guard forces and promote the forward movement of friendly cruiser and destroyer flotillas. By 1935, the Japanese Navy was far more cautious about the use of fast battleships in night combat. This is especially true of all main battle units. Here is something to use in your assessment. I hope it helps.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Aug 16, 2017 10:41:38 GMT -6
If the Lexingtons had been completed as battlecruisers, then it's likely that the Washington Naval Conference of 1922 never happened, failed to produce results, or did not virtually halt battleship and battlecruiser construction in the mid- and late-1920s, in which case the Imperial Japanese Navy in 1932 would likely have had at least some of the four Amagi-class battlecruisers, the two Tosa-class battleships, the four Kii-class fast battleships, and possibly also the four No. 13-class fast battleships, barring financial difficulties preventing their completion, which were planned to be built during the 1920s but cancelled as a result of the Washington Naval Conference in the real world. The Japanese would also have had the option to retain any or all of the two Fuso-class battleships, the two Ise-class battleships, the two Nagato-class battleships, and the four Kongo-class battlecruisers which you list, which would have given the IJN up to 24 capital ships under twenty years of age in 1932, though if the IJN held strictly to the eight-eight fleet plan then the Fuso- and Ise-class battleships and probably the Kongo-class battlecruisers or less likely the Nagato- and Tosa-class battleships should have been withdrawn from active service as the Kii- and No. 13-class fast battleships entered service, which would probably have occurred sometime in the mid-1920s. The Settsu, the surviving member of the Kawachi-class pair of dreadnought battleships built between 1909 and 1912, could also have been retained, though I expect that none of the older capital ships (the two semi-dreadnought Satsumas, the two semi-dreadnought Katoris, and the various predreadnoughts, or the two Tsukuba- and two Ibuki-class large armored cruisers) would have been retained through 1932.
The USN would have had the six Lexington-class battlecruisers and the six South Dakota (1920)-, the four Colorado-, the two Tennessee-, the three New Mexico-, the two Pennsylvania-, the two Nevada-, and the two New York-class battleships for a total of 6 battlecruisers and 21 battleships under twenty years of age, and could also have retained the two Wyoming-, the two Florida-, the two Delaware-, and the two South Carolina-class battleships for a total of 8 additional battleships.
The Royal Navy would have had the four G3-, the one Admiral-, the two Courageous-, the two Renown-, and the one Tiger-class battlecruisers and the four N3-, the five Revenge-, the five Queen Elizabeth-, the four Iron Duke-, and the three surviving King George V-class battleships for 10 battlecruisers and 21 battleships under 20 years of age, and could also have retained any or all of the two Lion-, two surviving Indefatigable-, and two surviving Invincible-class battlecruisers and the four Orion-, two Colossus-, one Neptune-, two surviving St. Vincent-, three Bellerophon-, and one Dreadnought-class battleships for a total of six additional battlecruisers and 13 additional battleships.
Without the Washington Naval Treaty preventing most battleship and battlecruiser construction in the 1920s, it is also possible that further classes of capital ship would have been designed, laid down, completed, and commissioned into the navies of the various powers between 1922 and 1932, supplementing and potentially replacing those ships which actually existed in the real world.
The Lexington-, Amagi-, and G3-class battlecruisers and the South Dakota (1920)-, Tosa-, Kii-, and No. 13-class battleships were all cancelled as a result of the Washington Naval Treaty, as was one of the four Colorado-class battleships, while the Royal Navy's planned four N3-class battleships would eventually be reduced to the two smaller Nelson-class battleships actually built and a large number of the older vessels were scrapped, expended as targets, or disarmed and reduced to training ships (the USN's Delaware- and South Carolina-class battleships, the Japanese Settsu, the Royal Navy's Orion-, Colossus-, Neptune-, St. Vincent-, and Dreadnought-class battleships and Lion-, Indefatigable-, and Invicible-class battlecruisers, as well as all of the pre- and semi-dreadnought battleships remaining in service in all three powers' navies).
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 16, 2017 11:04:23 GMT -6
If the Lexingtons had been completed as battlecruisers, then it's likely that the Washington Naval Conference of 1922 never happened, failed to produce results, or did not virtually halt battleship and battlecruiser construction in the mid- and late-1920s, in which case the Imperial Japanese Navy in 1932 would likely have had at least some of the four Amagi-class battlecruisers, the two Tosa-class battleships, the four Kii-class fast battleships, and possibly also the four No. 13-class fast battleships, barring financial difficulties preventing their completion, which were planned to be built during the 1920s but cancelled as a result of the Washington Naval Conference in the real world. The Japanese would also have had the option to retain any or all of the two Fuso-class battleships, the two Ise-class battleships, the two Nagato-class battleships, and the four Kongo-class battlecruisers which you list, which would have given the IJN up to 24 capital ships under twenty years of age in 1932, though if the IJN held strictly to the eight-eight fleet plan then the Fuso- and Ise-class battleships and probably the Kongo-class battlecruisers or less likely the Nagato- and Tosa-class battleships should have been withdrawn from active service as the Kii- and No. 13-class fast battleships entered service, which would probably have occurred sometime in the mid-1920s. The Settsu, the surviving member of the Kawachi-class pair of dreadnought battleships built between 1909 and 1912, could also have been retained, though I expect that none of the older capital ships (the two semi-dreadnought Satsumas, the two semi-dreadnought Katoris, and the various predreadnoughts, or the two Tsukuba- and two Ibuki-class large armored cruisers) would have been retained through 1932. The USN would have had the six Lexington-class battlecruisers and the six South Dakota (1920)-, the four Colorado-, the two Tennessee-, the three New Mexico-, the two Pennsylvania-, the two Nevada-, and the two New York-class battleships for a total of 6 battlecruisers and 21 battleships under twenty years of age, and could also have retained the two Wyoming-, the two Florida-, the two Delaware-, and the two South Carolina-class battleships for a total of 8 additional battleships. The Royal Navy would have had the four G3-, the one Admiral-, the two Courageous-, the two Renown-, and the one Tiger-class battlecruisers and the four N3-, the five Revenge-, the five Queen Elizabeth-, the four Iron Duke-, and the three surviving King George V-class battleships for 10 battlecruisers and 21 battleships under 20 years of age, and could also have retained any or all of the two Lion-, two surviving Indefatigable-, and two surviving Invincible-class battlecruisers and the four Orion-, two Colossus-, one Neptune-, two surviving St. Vincent-, three Bellerophon-, and one Dreadnought-class battleships for a total of six additional battlecruisers and 13 additional battleships. Without the Washington Naval Treaty preventing most battleship and battlecruiser construction in the 1920s, it is also possible that further classes of capital ship would have been designed, laid down, completed, and commissioned into the navies of the various powers between 1922 and 1932, supplementing and potentially replacing those ships which actually existed in the real world. The Lexington-, Amagi-, and G3-class battlecruisers and the South Dakota (1920)-, Tosa-, Kii-, and No. 13-class battleships were all cancelled as a result of the Washington Naval Treaty, as was one of the four Colorado-class battleships , while the Royal Navy's planned four N3-class battleships would eventually be reduced to the two smaller Nelson-class battleships actually built and a large number of the older vessels were scrapped, expended as targets, or disarmed and reduced to training ships (the USN's Delaware- and South Carolina-class battleships, the Japanese Settsu, the Royal Navy's Orion-, Colossus-, Neptune-, St. Vincent-, and Dreadnought-class battleships and Lion-, Indefatigable-, and Invicible-class battlecruisers, as well as all of the pre- and semi-dreadnought battleships remaining in service in all three powers' navies). You are making an assumption that the Japanese Diet, British Parliament and the US Congress, in the poor economic times would have allowed the construction of those ships. If fact, those bodies were against such construction and forced the navies to rethink their strategies. The Japanese were examining their lack of natural resources and looking toward Manchuria and China for help along with buying oil from the US. The British asked for the treaty to prevent the problem of trying build all those ships and US Congress was returning to isolationism and neither of the two following presidents wanted spend the amount of money necessary to build all those ships. So, the final answer is, maybe but I doubt there would have all those ships and probably only some would have been built.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 16, 2017 11:30:43 GMT -6
I just want to make a few points. When you decide to evaluate the Lexington Battle Cruiser designs, examine what happened at Jutland and understand what cause the loss of those ships. Examine the Hiei and Kirishima, and the location of the sinkings. For the Lexingtons, evaluate the possible designs that were offered to the Navy. For the other countries, examine their proposed designs. Examine their doctrine at the time, because that is what has prompted the requirements and specifications. Lastly, as I've said, examine the economics of the time and the geostrategy. Ships are systems and if a system or procedure fails, so will the ship. This is how you evaluate the designs. Would they have survived? I will let all of you figure that out.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 16, 2017 12:09:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Aug 16, 2017 12:38:59 GMT -6
The fourth Colorado-class battleship had been launched but not completed, a considerable amount of work had already been done on most of the six South Dakota-class battleships, the six Lexington-class battlecruisers had all been at least laid down with Lexington and Saratoga being nearly as far along as the majority of the South Dakotas, the two Tosa-class battleships had already been launched but not completed, and work on the first two Amagi-class battlecruisers had already been under way for about a year with the other two having been laid down shortly before work on the vessels was suspended for the Washington Naval Conference and subsequently terminated by the resultant treaty. While it is possible that some of these nineteen vessels would have been cancelled for economic reasons even without the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, it is unlikely that all of them would have been, and the completion of any of these vessels would have provided a powerful incentive for the Royal Navy not to abandon its own capital ship construction program during the 1920s. Furthermore, as the Lexington-class battlecruisers were less complete than the majority of the South Dakota-class battleships, it is more likely that the Lexington-class battlecruisers would have been struck for economic reasons than that any of the Lexingtons would be completed while all the South Dakotas were cancelled.
If you posit the existence of the Lexington-class battlecruisers as a part of the US Navy in 1932, you posit a world in which the capital ship construction programs of the major naval powers was not virtually halted during the 1920s, and at least some of the planned and actual ships, especially those already nearing completion (the fourth Colorado- and the two Tosa-class battleships) would almost certainly have been commissioned. The lists I posted aren't even maximal fleets - if a new naval arms race involving capital ship construction had not been preempted by the Washington Naval Conference and resultant treaty, ships of classes which hadn't yet been planned or designed would almost certainly have been laid down in the latter portion of the 1920s - and could have been made more economically feasible by reducing the pace of construction so that the American and Japanese ships cancelled during construction by the Washington Treaty were completed over a larger timespan than was originally planned.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 16, 2017 13:06:53 GMT -6
Here are two lists: one is for ships being built or projected on 12 November 1921, the other list is for ships in service. If you go beyond this point, it is simple counterfactual history, there is nothing to support that assumption. Just one last reminder: remember the fatal flaw in the Lexington design. I've brought it up before so I won't bring it up again. Yes, it is a fatal flaw insofar as it almost cost the Navy the Saratoga and it did cost them the Lexington. Wouldn't it be cool, if one of you smart guys could develop a scenario in SAI where we could test the Lexington design against different foreign designs. That would be awesome, totally.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Aug 16, 2017 13:48:40 GMT -6
I don't think I could agree with you because we have not determined who the US's primary enemy might be. We know it would not have been France, Germany or Italy. It is very doubtful that it would have been the English although we cannot eliminate them. The only answer is the Japanese Navy. So what proof do we have that it would have been the IJN? Well, not actual proof, but we do have Fleet Problems starting in February 18-22, 1923 in the Caribbean. Who was the adversary? That's right, at the time they were titled "Black" but later they would be Orange. The next three Fleet Problems were in 1924, January. Who was the adversary? Black or Japan. The problems go on until 1940. All against the Japanese. Now eventually the setting moved from the Caribbean to around Hawaii, once Pearl Harbor had been upgraded as a Fleet anchorage. But the enemy was always the same; Japan. So, when would the war occur? What about around the time of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria on September 18,1931. What would the IJN have looked like in 1932? Well, in battleships, she would have had the 18 year old Yamashiro and Fuso, Ise and Hyuga of the same age, Nagato and Mutsu, and the four Kongo's if their modernization was completed. It was started on Kongo in 1928 and not finished until 1931. The same goes for Hei, Kirishima and Haruna. So, there is the IJN battle fleet. I leave it to you to verify whether your supposition is correct or not. So I've considered this. Let me start out by saying that I'm not sure that this supposition of mine can be verified, if for no other reason than we are dealing in hypotheticals. So let us start first with the notion that the Lexington-Class battlecruisers were constructed. To do this, as aeson points out, the Washington Treaty probably did not come to fruition. Now this is important for the obvious reason that the restrictions placed upon the various signatories would not have existed, and as such, the Japanese would have been free to continue their own Amagi-Class battlecruiser. Now the Agmagi-class would have been 3 knots slower, but would have had a 10 inch belt and ten 16-inch guns compared to the Lexington-Class's 7 inch belt and eight 16-inch guns. As Jutland proved, speed was not an adequate replacement for armor, and while a 10 inch belt wouldn't stand being battered by 16 inch guns, arguably they'd stand it better than a 7 inch belt. Plus, the Amagi-Class having 2 more guns of the same caliber means that they'd being firing 20% more shells than the Lexington-Class.
However to I'd argue that the absence also means that the Four-Power Treaty and the Nine-Power Treaty never came about either. Why is this important? Well the Four-Power Treaty ended the Anglo-Japanese Alliance that had stood since 1902, and it dissolved a year later. The British went to Washington in 1922 looking for a way to preserve their naval supremacy, avoid another arms race, and ensure the defense of their possessions in areas they could not readily defend. IRL, they traded their Japanese Alliance for a disarmament pact, in effect trying to protect their possessions by simply having any possible enemy limit its own weapons. Absent the Naval Treaty and going on the theory that American naval power continues to build (our naval expansions were directed at the UK as much as anyone else), it is not entirely unreasonable to assume that Great Britain would maintain the Alliance in order to protect its interests in the Pacific, particularly with an ally that had shown itself willing to support its ally (Japan's involvement in World War I). Now if we are to postulate that the United States declares war on Japan over the invasion of Manchuria, it also be postulated (given how uncharacteristic that would have been of the United States to have declared war), that Britain would support its Japanese ally in such a case. Now we have to put the Lexington-Class up against the British as well as the Japanese. So assuming the Lexington-Class is built, it is fair to assume that the G3-Class was also constructed. Let's compare: G3 has nine 16-inch guns to Lexington-Class's 8 gun, G3 has 12-14 inch belt compared to Lexington-Class's 7 inch belt. Lexington-Class is slightly faster at 33 knots, but G3-Class is close at 32 knots. So the Lexington-Class would be, in effect, going up against new two battlecruiser types that would be better armored, and have more guns, and would only outpace them by 3 knots at most. Now, I will concede that the Lexington-Class would have had a good chance against the Kongo-Class with their 14 inch guns, provided that the Lexington stay out of range. Now we can turn to HMS Hood (with it's vulnerability to plunging fire) and the Renown-Class. Both would have been out-gunned by the Lexington-Class, due to only having 8 and 6 15-inch guns respectively, however testing done on the British BL 15 Mk I in 1919 found that it could punch through 7 inches of belt armor. Neither class of ship were particularly well-armored, and could not take hits fired by the other. The British ships were designed for 31 knots, but proved in the 1920s that they could do 32 knots. While they would have had an edge against the older British and Japanese battlecruisers, I'm not really sure that is saying much: A warship should be better than the older ships that precede it, and it's nothing really special to say that they would have been better than the Kongo-Class or the Renown-Class, or the Hood, as these Ships were all commissioned well before USS Lexington's keel was laid in 1921. A design is probably a failure if it isn't better than older designs. I'll stop talking about hypotheticals and discuss hard facts. Let's look at the battlecruiser losses suffered in World War One: British losses: HMS Indefatigable, HMS Invincible, and HMS Queen Mary, German losses: zero. Now while the British did not have many opportunities to destroy German battlecruisers, they had just as many as the Germans did. Now why did the British lose 3 to the German's none. Well lots of reasons (there was an discussion of this in my AAR [shameless promotion}). For one thing, the British Battlecruiser Force did not observe good safety procedures regarding the storage of ammunition (Beatty preferred fast shooting and as a result, corners were cut). British ammunition used a less stable chemical formula than the Germans did, and two of the British battlecruisers that exploded had paper-thin armor. How does their armor compare to the Lexington-Class? Let's look at HMS Queen Mary, as she was the most modern one to blow up:
HMS Queen Mary Belt: 9 Inches at thickest point Barbettes and Turrets: 8-9 inches Deck Armor: 2.5 inches Conning Tower: 10 inches
Lexington-Class Belt: 7 inches at thickest point Barbettes and Turrets: 11 inch faces, 6 inch sides Deck: 1.5-2.25 inches Conning Tower: 12 inches Overall, the Lexington-Class were only marginally better armored than a British battlecruiser that exploded after only two hits. Overall, I still think that the Lexington-Class would have been a poor battlecruiser if for no other reason than the other battlecruisers that were planned to be built with it all had slightly more firepower and were better armored. While I can't verify it as we are speaking in hypotheticals, I think that evidence from the performance of similar armor schemes aboard British battlecruisers from Jutland indicate that that they were under-armored: combine that with the being even slightly outgunned and I think that things could have gotten pretty dicy in battle. I'd also say that even though many would guess that the Americans would win a war in 1932 against Japan (I definitely think that they would have), I'd remind everyone that even though the Royal Navy was mightiest navy on Earth during World War I, the opponent that many people expected it to cream was able to sink 3 of its battlecruisers without the Royal Navy inflicting one on their own.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 16, 2017 14:52:18 GMT -6
Interesting, and thought out nicely.
I don't agree with the assumption that Great Britain would have supported Japan, she was in no condition for more wars and her country was definitely not going to go along with it. The Alliance with Japan had been terminated in 1922. In fact, in a Naval Mission to the Dominions in the Far East, Admiral Sir John Jellicoe had suspicions of Japan's intentions in the region. He became convinced that Great Britain and Japan would clash. He and the government realized that the Royal Navy could not protect the Atlantic and the Far East all together. In view of this, and the national reluctance to enter another war, they would have stayed neutral. So, the Lexington's are only going to have to match themselves with the Japanese ships.
Ok, so what's my assessment of the Lexington's and their future. Six were planned but I suspect only two or maybe three would have been built. I believe that the battlecruiser would have morphed into a slower but better armored fast battleship. Is there proof that this concept was under consideration? Yes. There is a preliminary design dtd. March 4, 1919 for a fast battleship with twelve 16-inch guns, 25 knots, with a main side belt armor of 12- 8 inches which is thicker than the proposed South Dakota's. I believe, I hope, they would have noticed how slow the Lexington's turned and their increased turning radius so they would have modified the designs for the new ships to have dual rudders. The fast battleship design did have a reduced Length to beam compared to the Lexington's and this would have helped this turning problem. The Lexington's were almost 9:1, the fast battleship was about 7.5:1. This might have made the fast battleship less vulnerable to torpedoes, because the Lexington's were sitting ducks.
In a gunfight, the Lexington's would have had the speed to run from a bigger more dangerous ship, but with the problems in turning, trying to zig zag would have been a problem. Possibly, in the mid-1930's, even with the Depression, possibly these ships could have been upgraded in armor but would have lost any speed advantage in doing so.
Would there have been a war in 1932? I don't think so, we were not in a position economically to do it and frankly, China wasn't really that important that we would have gone to war. We would have imposed an embargo on many natural resources from both the US and South America as we later did.( The companies in South America which supplied resources were US owned) We might have even cut off their oil. That would have slowed the Japanese military down to a crawl and possibly the China War would have simply ended peaceably. We might have even frozen their gold supplies in the US and that would have ruined their trading with the world. We did that eventually.
|
|