Talk:Lexington-class aircraft carrier

Treaty Displacement

[Moved from Talk:USS Lexington (CV-2):]

Which treaty caused limits to the tonnage of the ship? And it's not clear from the article whether the US "cheated" or whether there was some complex "tonnage borrowing" aspect of the (mysterious) treaty. 17 December 2005; 69.181.82.202

The washington naval treaty [[1]] 09:25, 9 April 2006; 66.6.80.48

The text of this article suggests that there was evasion of the Washington Naval Treaty as the carrier is stated to have displaced 40,000 tons. The treaty limitation however is on "standard" displacement, not full load (including fuel). Is it contended that the ships in fact displaced 40,000 tons "at completion" at standard displacement, and if so, where is the authority? Kablammo 01:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC) The treaty also allowed the US to possess 135,000 T in carriers. The total tonnage of Langley, Lex, and Sara did not begin to approach that figure. So how is it that the ""savings" of tonnage [in Lex and Sara] allowed for the later construction of the Ranger" as now claimed? In fact it wasn't until USS Wasp (CV-7) that the US bumped up against the 135k limitation. I think the present text is wrong but I'll wait for input on this before changing it. Kablammo 02:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect text deleted. The treaty allowed these ships to displace 33,000 tons, and have an additional 3,000 tons added for deck and underwater protection [[2]]; hence the 36,000 ton displacement figure. [[3]] The USN and Jane's however continued to use the 33,000 ton figure. Kablammo 03:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________

[Moved from exchange between Kablammo and Fuzzypony:]

USS Lexington

Hello Fuzzypony. I am interested in the source for the displacement figures you give for Lex and Sara. The sources I have read give their standard displacements (as opposed to full-load displacements) at 33,000 or 36,000 tons. Also, those sources do not support the claim that Ranger was built with the remaining treaty tonnage, but that Wasp was. See Talk:USS Lexington (CV-2) and the sources cited there. (Reply here or on the Lex talk page.) Thanks. Kablammo 13:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

My paternal grandfather and a second cousin was among the designers (as a CC and after the treaty, as a CV) of LEXINGTON and SARATOGA. I still have his papers that relate to the construction of both ships. My father served in LEX from 1931 until her loss in 1942. He then served in Sara until her end at Bikini Atoll. I am a Naval Engineer-as well as retired USN.

As for the tonnage: The USN was presented by the problem of the Washington Naval Treaty that stipulated the tonnage and number of warships. (Carriers were limited to two of over 27,000 tons-with a limit of 33,500 tons.) As CC's LEX and Sara were to have been 45,000 tons and it was nearly impossible to have 'reduced' them to 33,000 tons even with the loss of the big guns, deck and side armor. As it was, the "real" tonnage left them with some very minor stability problems that took some time to solve. In addition, the USN lost much new construction to the treaty and was loath to lose even more.

The USN, in wishing to keep the CC hulls to convert to CV's, fudged the numbers in order to 'save' tonnage for future ships (in this case RANGER, the first purpose built carrier) Even with RANGER, tonnage was kept low in order that WASP could also be constructed and "keep" within treaty limits. The USN 'gave' back tonnage by converting LANGLEY to a Seaplane Carrier(AV) which took her off the Treaty stipulations entirely.

The USN kept in mind that carriers were testbeds-and thus a learning experience. Going from LANGLEY to the huge LEXINGTONS was a tremendous leap. The overhauls that LEX and SARA went through (that further increased tonnage) was a result of the lessons learned in but a few short years of operation. The Navy realized that such overhauls would happen as the ships conducted operations and operational data required alterations to be made. By WWII, both ships were creeping closer to 40,000 light displacement and 45-50,000 tons full load. (SARA ended the war at over 50,000 tons) The same applied to RANGER and WASP, as they gained more operation experience, the ships were modified to meet that experience. Most overhauls rarely result in tonnage decreases-they had to have a bit of leeway in that regard.

One last to consider: One way of saving displacement tonnage was by reducing the draft of a ship. LEX was reported to have had a light draft of 31 feet. In reality she had a draft of 32.5 feet. Her full load draft neared 35 feet. Another way was to report bunkerage that was less than accurate (LEX could carry 9,700 tons of fuel oil, though it was reported she could only carry an absolute maximum of 8,150. In addition, she had to keep some fuel unused to keep her on an even keel due to the large funnel and bridge superstructure) In short, if you report a draft lower, the less the ship displaced.

As a matter of note, the Japanese Navy often 'shorted' reported tonnage figures. Why should the USN (who knew of the Japanese ploy) do any differently?

My apology in taking so long to reply, but my health of late has been less than stellar.

Fuzzypony 04:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC) fuzzypony

Thanks for your reply. I hope that your health has improved and that you will be back contributing soon. I was aware that the Treaty limits were interpreted quite liberally by the contracting powers (I think the Brits claimed that they were the only ones who didn't cheat), and that many ships probably did have standard displacements in excess of the treaty limits. I still however have a question: Everything I have read states that it was Wasp that was built smaller to comply with treaty totals (after reclassification of Langley), not Ranger. When Ranger was built the US was not close to the limits.

Fly Navy! Kablammo 14:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The treaty limits were very liberally interpreted, and the British did cheat a bit. As for RANGER, remember that she was the first purpose built US carrier, so her construction was fairly conservative. The Navy kept in mind that tonnage limits had to be given lip service, so RANGER was kept smaller than they would have liked. In doing so, they actually has extra tonnage to built WASP (and they were again helped by the conversion of LANGLEY) but at a price: RANGER (a fine ship) was not the optimal design due to her size, speed and armor constraints-the same applied to WASP. Still, these ships were invaluable when you consider the practical information that resulted from their service. US carriers really came into their own with the YORKTOWN and ESSEX classes.

In addition to the above, the US followed a logical premise: Best to have more carriers (albeit smaller) than a few large (though not a LEXINGTON or SARATOGA) carriers. The basic all-the-eggs-in-one-basket premise. LEX and SARA ate a lot of tonnage, so economy was the word.

A bit more on LEX and SARA: They often exceeded their "trial" speed. Turbo-Electric drive was a potent (though expensive and heavy) system. When on trials, LEX and SARA met their contract speed while only at 70% of power. As far as the Navy was concerned, if the ships met and held (on a four hour full-power trial) their designed speed, they were happy. Good engineering practice hold that you don't push a new engineering plant until it's broken in a bit. Also, the "black gang" had some learning to do as well. Both LEX and SARA could and would exceed 35 knots in service. Of course, the old girls gulped fuel (and feed water) doing so--and the tin-cans usually couldn't keep up!

Fuzzypony 16:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC) fuzzypony

Changed the description of the hangers from largest to deepest. The hanger did indeed have the greatest depth (or height) of any WWII US carrier, but the actual dimensions of the hanger were fairly modest, largely due to the fact these were conversions of battlecruisers.

Re: The alleged five turreted USN battlecruisers

Reference is made in the article to studies wherein USN "battlecruiser" designs were to have up to five quad turrets mounting 12" rifles.

In all the readings available, especially that by Friedman in his design development texts on USN battleships and USN cruisers, not one reference exists to such a study.

The studies which existed dealing with what one may refer to as "battlecruisers" are of three types. You had the battlescout series which were of two types, one series looking at the requirements of high speed scouts with varying armour suites (and featuring generally 8-14" rifles) and the other at the upscaling of cruiser practice for the more traditional types culminating in the 1917 battle scouts (Constellation class); and what were referred to as "battlecruisers" which were in reality more akin to fast versions of battleship contemporaries at the time (with respect to armour scheme) such as Wyoming or New York, featuring twin 12" (presumably the 45 calibre but equally likely the 50 calibre to enhance hitting power at short ranges) and more likely not exceeding four twin turret/barbettes.

Certainly the largest turret/barbette construction up to the BB-55 studies was a triple turret. No quad is ever mentioned for the dreadnought era. The only exception is the one off Tillman design with the sextuple 16" which clearly was disfavoured by all involved. Given warship construction practices of the USN at the time a quad 12" turret/barbette would have been "doable" for a battlecruiser designed under the principles of the Wyoming, but certainly problemmatic if for example one intended to utilize the battlescout variants as upscaled from cruiser practice.

Although Friedman is certainly the pre-eminent authority on the matter and the absence of information from his writing a sign that more likely than not a design that the author mentions was never a design, still, there is always the chance that Friedman and others overlooked material which may have come to light in the last decade.

On behalf of the Warship Projects Board 3.0 and also the scholars who deal with these matters, if you have any source information on these designs please share with me so I can forward to the Warship Projects Board 3.0, which of course you are welcome to visit and join as we so far have gotten a fair bit of information on never-built warship designs.

209.205.181.109 19:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Melvin J. Burmaster 209.205.181.109 19:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed ship naming conventions text

This stuff might be interesting but I don't think it beolongs on this page:

Although the first purpose-built carriers pre-WWII were named for earlier ships, e.g., Wasp and Ranger, in the grest expansion after Pearl Harbor, battle names came to predominate. As it happens, the first carrier, “Langley,�? CV-1, had been named for an individual, Samuel Pierpont Langley, an unsuccessful rival of the Wright brothers. The next person to be honored was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Weeks after his death, CV-42, which had been named Coral Sea, was renamed for him. Other individuals so honored were James V. Forrestal, the first Secretary of Defense (CV-59), and the Wright Brothers (CV-49)/ Another type of exception was CV-38, named “Shangri-La,�? for the city in James Hilton’s novel Lost Horizon. This alluded to the fact that when FDR belatedly announced the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo, he said that the planes had flown from “Shangri-La,�? actually CV-8, “Hornet.�? Still another was CV-63, “Kitty Hawk,�? commemorating the first heavier-than-air flight. The last carrier to be named for an historic ship was CV-66, “America,�? commemorating the Navy’s first ship of the line. The next carrier CV-67, was named for the recently assassinated John F. Kennedy. Since then, all carriers have been named for individuals, mostly U.S. presidents, although two have honored powerful committee chairmen in Congress. CV-77, “George H. W. Bush,�? is the first to honor a living former president. Dave w74 01:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Turbo-electric drive

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-038.htm disputes that turbo-electric was all that vulnerable, and discusses the Saratoga engine outage in detail. I've no strong feelings either way, but thought it was worth a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.9.217.229 (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Really?

This article states that Lexington-class aircraft carriers were distinguished by "topside flight decks" - are there any other kind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lexington-class aircraft carrier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 11:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• No disambiguation links (no action required)
• Checklinks report appears fine (no action required) - there is one link reported as "indeterminate", but I checked it manually and it is OK.
• There are several duplicate links in the article which should be removed per WP:OVERLINK. Those are: Bureau of Construction and Repair (2x), Elevator (piped from "aircraft elevator"), Turbo generator, Knot (unit), Superfiring, Magazine (artillery), Conning tower, Wake Island, and the Battle of the Eastern Solomons.
  • Cleaned all of these up.
• Image licensing and captions appear to be in order (no action required)
• In "G3 battlecruiser", should the G3 be italicised or not? I mean to ask if G3 is the name of the class it should probably be italicised, if it is some sort of informal designation of the project I suppose it should remain as is. I'm not bent on either solution, and I see that was no issue at Talk:G3 battlecruiser/GA1, rather thought to ask for future reference.
  • It doesn't need to be italicized because it's not a proper name, just a design designation.
• Bureau of Construction and Repair is provided with an abbreviation "(C&R)", but only at the second instance. I suggest moving the abbreviation to the first instance. Furthermore, do you consider use of the abbreviation instead of the remaining occurrences of "Bureau of Construction and Repair" would be detrimental to understanding of the prose?
  • I decided not to abbreviate it after all consider how rarely it's used.
• If "40,000 KVA" is meant to stand for 40,000,000 Volt-amperes, the unit should be written as kVA.
  • Good catch, fixed.

Sorry about the delay. I'll complete the review over the weekend.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Resuming...

• Something appears to be amiss in "...by license-built Oerlikon 20 mm autocannon beginning in 1942. The Oerlikon fired a 40-millimeter (1.6 in), .272-pound (0.123 kg) high-explosive shell..." Were the Oerlikons 20mm guns or 40mm guns?
  • They're 20mm guns.
• Just to verify: The M2 Brownings whose effective range was only 1,600 yards were replaced because they had too short effective range by Oerlikons whose effective range was 600 yards shorter. Granted the 20mm projectiles carry a greater punch, but the cited short effective range given as a cause for the replacement leads to the question: Are all the effective range figures correct?

This wraps it up. Interesting article, I enjoyed reading it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• • The solid .50-caliber shell was relatively ineffective even though it out ranged the explosive 20mm shell. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

All clear then. Passing nom.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)