Talk:Lexington-class battlecruiser

Hyphen?

Should there be a hyphen in the title, creating "Lexington-class battlecruiser"? If so, I'll move it. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 04:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Q. I'd say no, becuase of Nevada class battleship, Pennsylvania class battleship etc., but I'll add a question to WT:MILHIST tommorow. Thanks Pianista! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No, because the hyphen that you see is generated by {{Sclass}} to properly display the name in the proper grammatical context where appropriate when linking to the article. The hyphen is for the adjectival form while no hyphen is for the noun form. Since naming is proper, the noun form is appropriate. Also, Ed, the proper place to ask would have been WT:SHIPS. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

2008 found...

...me asking this question. :) Minor technicality, but what is with starting so many sentences with "1917 found the ships..." "1918 found..." etc.? Is there any way to fix them w/o changing the meaning too much/making it too verbose? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 05:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You tell me, Ms. I'm a good copy-editor. :P I'm only trying to say what happened in that year - were they still on hold, what part of the design was changed, etc. Did this answer even help? :/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not much. :) I'll see what I can do, though, if no one else has any suggestions. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

When I start with that wording, everything in the para happened during that year. (I don't know of how else to say that lol :/) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Another question (Conversion section): "While the conversion would have better anti-torpedo protection, larger magazines for aircraft bombs than a keel-up carrier and a longer landing space" - needs clarification. Why would a dedicated design be in any part worse than an adhoc conversion? I presume the text refers to a specific carrier proposal, but what was it? NVO (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ack. Good point to bring up. I'll hunt for that later when I get back on. You are right in it referring to a specific proposal, but I can't remember what that proposal was... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

Fix third para of 'Genesis'. Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 19:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Sunk after the Battle of Coral Sea"

Both saw extensive action in the Second World War, with Lexington conducting many raids before being sunk after the Battle of Coral Sea and Saratoga involved in battles around the Pacific and the Far East.

Minor question here, but did it sink after the battle, or during it. I know, the answer may be obvious, but I'm just musing aloud here. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 04:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

After. Was hit, thought she was going to stay afloat, then was consumed in flames...after. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 04:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Lexington painting size issue

I'm not familiar enough with image processing on Wikipedia to tackle this myself, so...

The small image titled "A painting of the Lexington class' original planned configuration" in the section "Original and subsequent redesigns" is actually linking to a 7MB GIF. This is slightly excessive for the 120x72 image being displayed, and considerable slows the loading of the page. That this article is linked for the Wiki-En homepage today doesn't help either.

Anyway, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Lexington_original_configuration_edited.gif should be processed into a smaller file, and that linked, or if that's not possible, the image should probably be replaced or removed (which would be unfortunate, but I don't think it's reasonable to have a 7MB image in the article). Rwessel (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Other Battlecruiser Class

There was an Alaska class battlecruiser (CB) class produced during WWII, and therefore the Lexingtons were not the only battlecruisers ever ordered by the US. Despite the official discouragement against referring to them as battlecruisers, and their designation as "large cruisers", they were designated as CB. These ships were of about 34,000 tons full load with 9x 12 inch guns, so any other designation seems to be an exercise in semantics.

170.98.106.254 (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)WBM170.98.106.254 (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of those beliefs and figures, we have to go by the official designations, so "large cruisers" are what they are. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh no an error!

The lead section reads: Six—given names from the American Revolutionary War & etc. During the ARW there were no Continental Navy ships named Constitution, Constellation or United States. Those names originate from the first six frigates of 1794... not that I'd know anything about those. Ed needs a trout slap. --Brad (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

...oops. I think I've fixed that now... that was a basic and silly error. Thanks Brad :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"Silly" because there was no "constitution" nor "United States" in the ARW. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Something you can expand on in this article. The names Constitution and Constellation were still being used by USS Constitution and USS Constellation (1854) respectively. In order to use the names for this class the other ships were renamed Old Constitution and Old Constellation respectively. In fact Constitution was the original intended name for this class. DANFS covers the information and there are further refs to this in the Constitution article. I'm surprised I missed this whole angle during the FAC. --Brad (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Cruisers!

Thanks Brad. For the most part, I need additional information for the Original and subsequent redesigns section (...hopefully enough so that we can split that ugly section name). Also, is there enough information to add "armor" and "propulsion" sections? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok a bit at a time and I'm paraphrasing:

• In October 1915 a tentative 5 year program called for 10 battleships, 6 battle cruisers and 10 destroyers to be completed by 1922. In the first year 3 battle cruisers were to be built. Plans called for a parity with Great Britain by 1925. Program submitted to Congress in December 1915 with strong support from President Woodrow Wilson. 2 June 1916 the House passes a compromise bill replacing 5 battleships with five battle cruisers as first reports from the battle of Jutland(p. 71) suggested that battle cruisers had been overvalued. The Senate restored the original 10 battleships, 6 battlecruisers and 10 scouts and placed it into a 3 year time frame, fiscal years 1917–1919. This act passed on 29 August 1916.(p. 72) --Brad (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• The six Constellation-class battlecruisers (first time I've ever seen them called such) were paid for in FY 17 for CC's 1–4; FY 18 for CC-5 and FY 19 for CC-6 (p.72) --Brad (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• ten destroyers or scout cruisers?

He is referring to the Omaha class cruiser.

• • " first reports from the battle of Jutland(p. 71) suggested that battle cruisers had been overvalued." -- why would battlecruisers be replacing battleships then?

Doesn't make sense to me either but dat what the book says.

• • Also, if you get bored/tired of this, feel free to scan the relevant pages and email them to me. ;) Does he have anything substantial on USS Hawaii (CB-3) (asking before I forget)? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I must say that this is one of the most vague and confusing books I've ever read. He rarely refers to the ships by name or class name and keeps flipping back and forth describing other ships. I don't own a scanner so I would have to turn this over to someone nearby to have it done. That would take a few days, though as I mentioned before it's likely I can have this book out for several weeks at least. In a hurry? --Brad (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

His battleships book isn't too bad, but I found the aircraft carrier one to be a like that. And no, I'm not in any kind of a hurry. Thanks a bunch, Brad. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have the book scanned. Apparently there were 3 designs considered for the class and there is a chart outlining the specs of each. --Brad (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

On second thought. I just looked up the info on the CB's Hawaii etc. There is an entire write up on those too; including several different design plans for them. I'm beginning to think that it would be worth your while to request the book via MelCat after all. --Brad (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad I caught you; I forgot to mention that a friend emailed me pp. 287–309, which he got from some other guy, but I haven't been able to get ahold of him again. Are there any mentions of Hawaii outside that page range?

There were three designs? That's news to me; I thought there were only two. I love Friedman's charts. :-) I'll request the book from melcat when I go home—it's not worth my while to get it up at college when I leave in a month and will be dealing with exams. (natit citsejam • klat) dE— 04:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Queen Mary vs Lexington armour comparison

The 3" dimension for Lexington's turret roof plate is compared to the 9" turret face on the Lion Class, the article states as a result of this comparison that Lexington et al were to carry only 1/3 the armour of the already lightly protected Lions.

This is misleading as the turret's face is typically 3-4 times heavier than the roof. Though the fate of Queen Mary is telling to the weakness the Lexington Class' protection scheme, the weight of armour carried by each class is broadly similar, rather than grossly in favour of either vessel.

194.75.48.5 (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Des

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

Referencing Wikipedia's excerpt on the Alaska Class "[Class]" ships of late WWII, I question the validity of the above claim. Apparently, the US Navy classified them as Large Cruisers (CB). Yet, the claim of the Lexington Class as the only US battlecruiser class ever ordered by the US Navy should, I think, be notated with a reference to the Alaska Class. I am not familiar with the reasoning of the Navy when determining the Alaska class classification but, by design, it's difficult to recognize the Alaska class as a cruiser and to see it, legitimately, as anything other than a battlecruiser.

Hello! Thanks for your comments, but have you read note A1? This directly addresses this. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Source

Hi, this is the British opinion of the Lexingtons: R.S. Edwards, ""British Opinion of U.S. Battle Cruisers," Proceedings 42, no. 6 (1916): 1982. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lexington-class battlecruiser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120122115902/http://www.history.navy.mil:80/danfs/u1/united_states.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/u1/united_states.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

engines

I have a few doubts on

Each propeller was 14 feet 9 inches (4.50 m) in diameter and each of the four propeller shafts was powered by two 22,500-shaft-horsepower (16,800 kW) electric motors acting in tandem. These motors were about five times the size of any earlier electric motor.[34] Four General Electric turbo generators powered each propeller shaft and each was rated at 35,200 kilowatts (47,200 hp), 5000 volts and 4620 amps of direct current (DC). Each of the four AC alternators produced 40,000 KVA. Sixteen water-tube boilers, each in their own individual compartment, provided steam for the generators at a working pressure of 295 psi (2,034 kPa; 21 kgf/cm2) and a temperature of 460 °F (238 °C). The turbo-electric machinery of the Lexington-class ships was designed to produce a total of 180,000 shaft horsepower (130,000 kW) and propel the ships at 33.25 knots (61.58 km/h; 38.26 mph), but each ship reached over 202,000 shp (151,000 kW) and 34.5 knots (63.9 km/h; 39.7 mph) during sea trials in 1928.

first a question about my english. I understand "Four General Electric turbo generators powered each propeller shaft" as "there were 16 such generators". is a misprint or is my english poor?

I understand that the thermal engines developed a litte more than 130-151 MW (this is the shaft power). They drove 4 DC generators for 4*35.2=141 MW and 4 alternators for 4*40=160 MW, i.e machinery for 300 MW. Were these devices connected simultaneously or one at a time? (my feeling is that the engines were DC ones - since before the text speaks of polarity inversion - and that the alternators are spurious additions).

In view of the losses, 5000 V * 4620 A = 23.1 MW should be an upper limit to the power 35.2 MW

I cannot find Breyer in the bibliography.

"the four Tsukuba-class armored cruisers" should be " the four Tsukuba and Ibuki-class armored cruisers"

just below 360->356 & 130->127

I suspect that in "Because of the difference in ultimate tensile strength between armor steel and hull steel, severe stresses on the hull were expected" the ultimate tensile strength should be replaced by Young modulus.

just below 360->356 & 130->127

pietro151.29.249.152 (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)