- Yes
- No
- Tech Tree
- Event/Gift
- Premium
- Squadron
- Indifferent
- I don’t want to see it added
USS United States
Project, Not Completed
USS United States under construction in the Philadelphia Navy Yard, July 14th, 1921.
Background
USS United States was the sixth ship of the Lexington-class battlecruisers. She was laid down on the 25th of September, 1920. She was never launched, and work was suspended multiple times.
Officially the only class of battlecruiser ever ordered by the US Navy, the design of the Lexington-class dates back to the early 1900s. Following a series of design studies, the class would be requested for construction in 1911 as a response to the Japanese Kongou-class ships. They would not be approved for construction until the passing of the Navy Act of 1916, and their construction was repeatedly delayed due to the war in Europe causing shifting priorities.
By the time construction finally resumed in 1920, the ships had been considerably redesigned. United States’s construction was suspended once more in 1921, pending the outcome of the Washington Naval Treaty. Following the signing of the Treaty, she was cancelled on the 17th of August, 1923, and sold for scrap on the 25th of October, 1923, and was broken up in place.
Design History
In 1903, questions had arose at the Naval War College of the overall effectiveness of large armored cruisers, such as the Pennsylvania and Tennessee-classes then coming into service. The summer memorandum of that year suggested that a new type of cruiser that should be armored like a battleship, and armed like a battleship. This design study predated the first battlecruiser, HMS Invincible, by several years. The 1906 report strongly advocated for building such a ship, as it would be useful for both scouting and possess strong armor. The General Board and the Secretary of the Navy refused the proposal, but nonetheless the NWC would test such a proposed ship against a variety of foreign designs, among them HMS Invincible.
By 1908, the NWC had come to prefer battlecruisers over armored cruisers, as the new ranges battles were expected to be fought favored speed over armor. The 1908 conference concluded that battlecruisers should be built, with the caveat that they were not to be used in the battleline with regular battleships. A majority report recommended a speed 20% faster than the US battleships then under construction, and the Bureau of Construction and Repair sketched some designs that year. The designs would have a minimum speed of 25.4kts (47kph), on a ship displacing 26,000t. The General Board kept the sketches, but did not authorize any construction.
At the same time, developments were underway in the Pacific. In 1905, Japan had handily beat the Russians at the Battle of Tsushima, cementing its place as a Pacific power and putting it at odds with the United States for dominance in the Pacific. The new Tsukuba-class armored cruisers, laid down between 1905 and 1908, was of a radical design for the time, featuring 12-inch (305mm) guns and 8-inches (203mm) of armor. These kind of specs were generally reserved for capital ships, but Japan now intended to use these armored cruisers in the battle line - exactly as the Naval War College had suggested the USN do years previously. So while the USN did not really react to Germany or Britain building new battlecruisers in the 1910s, they had a very different response to the laying down of what would become IJN Kongou, in 1911. Following reports for Naval Intelligence that Kongou was the first of four ships, the Secretary of the Navy asked the General Board to consider battlecruisers for the USN Pacific Fleet to combat these new ships, as the previously mentioned Pennsylvania and Tennessee-class armored cruisers would no longer be up to it. While initially dismissive of the idea, the General Board eventually settled on requesting a 30,000t ship with Nevada-class battleship armor, and capable of steaming at 29kts; an American Kongou. But due to the Board’s reluctancy, progress was slow. In 1912, Naval Constructor R.H. Robinson presented the findings of these studies during a lecture at the Naval War College with the General Board in attendance. He emphasized a minimum of 8-inches of armor and a range of 8000 miles, so that it may be on par with US battleships. This led the Board to request two of such battlecruisers, and ask Construction and Repair to alter the design, but the NWC felt the design was fundamentally flawed.
At the same time, the politics of the United States were not conducive to battlecruiser construction. Already, the Navy felt that Congress was not authorizing enough battleships, and felt that requests for battlecruisers would come at the cost of battleships, which the Navy deemed more important. But, a few years later, as the Great War raged in Europe, Congress became more accepting. A tentative five-year plan, supported by President Woodrow Wilson, called for ten battleships and five battlecruisers, along with ten destroyers, to be completed by 1922. After passing through both the House and the Senate, the plan was altered to be two years shorter, but the ships were approved and paid by 1918 (FY 1919).
The new Lexington-class battlecruisers were intended to be, along with the Omaha and Wickes-class cruisers and destroyers, respectively, part of a 35kt scouting force to support a large battle fleet. However, keel laying for the battlecruisers was delayed as material was allocated to much needed anti-sub and merchant ships. The six ships were Lexington (CC-1), Constellation (CC-2), Saratoga (CC-3), Ranger (CC-4), Constitution (CC-5), and United States (CC-6), and given the designation CC for battlecruiser.
The original 1916 design called for these specifications: ten 14"(356mm)/50 guns in four turrets, two triple and two dual; eighteen 5"(127mm)/51 singles; and a displacement of 34,900t and 35kts of speed. But, delays in the construction due to the priority of merchant and anti-submarine vessels left the BuC&R time to redesign, after the construction was placed on hold in 1917. Around 1918, the USN became impressed by the new ship HMS Hood, the lead of the planned Admiral-class. This ship was termed as a “fast battleship” by the USN staff, and considered by the Royal Navy as a replacement for both the battleship and battlecruiser, and USN Staff proposed such a ship for the USN. Chief Constructor David Taylor agreed, and in April, 1918, he told the Lexington-class design staff to redesign the ships with the maximum possible speed, armor, and firepower. Specifically, this was a change to 16-inch (406mm) guns from the concurrently designed South Dakota-class battleships, and a speed of at least 30kts.
With the help of a Royal Navy attaché, who brought plans for Hood as well as damage reports from the Battle of Jutland, ideas from Hood were quickly adapted to the Lexington-class design. Changes included: a change to sloped armor, reduction in main armor belt, increase in vertical belt armor to 7 inches, four above water torpedo tubes in addition to the four underwater ones, widening the ship for improved torpedo protection, and others. Advancements in technology had reduced the number of boilers from the original 24 to 16, trunked through two funnels. These changes increased the displacement to 43,500t, 300t more than the South Dakota-class and 10,900t more than the previous class of battleships, the Colorado-class.
Four designs were submitted to the Board in June, 1918, along with a letter recommending protection only from fire 6-inches or smaller. The Board declined all the designs, as they thought the the time and cost of implementing any of the redesigns would delay the 1916 building program, which was then under construction. They were also concerned that the adoption of such “fast battleships,” in shades of Hood, would make the US’s fleet of standard battleships obsolete. Commander-in-Chief, European Waters, Admiral William S. Sims, argued for the redesigned vessels by pointing out that Hood had already done what the Board hoped wouldn’t happen. Debate continued until 1919, when it was decided that the Lexington-class was to built as planned, but with slight modifications; this was design B3, the final design of the battlecruisers.
Design B3 of the Lexington-class battlecruisers, the final design. (Breyer, 1970)
Specifications
Final Design
| General Information | |
|---|---|
| Displacement | 45,355 tons (full load) |
| Length | 874ft (266.4m) |
| Beam | 105ft 4in (32.1m) |
| Draft | 31ft (9.4m) |
| Speed | 33 knots (61 km/h) |
| Complement | ~1,300 officers and enlisted |
| Gun | Turret/Mount | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 8 × 16"(406mm)/50 Mk 2 | 4 x Twin | |
| 16 x 6"(152mm)/53 Mk 13 | 16 x Single Casemate | 8 on each side |
| 8 x 3"(76.2mm)/50 Mk 10 | 8 x Single, AA | |
| ? x 21"(533mm) Torpedo Tubes | ? x Bliss-Leavitt Mk 1(?) | Unsure which torpedo specifically, or how many; ship to have four torpedo tubes on each side, two submerged and two above-water |
| 16" (406mm) Ammunition | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Designation | Mass | Bursting Charge | Muzzle Velocity | Notes | |
| AP Mk 3 | 2,110lbs (957.1kg) | 57.5lbs (26.1kg) Exp. D | 2,800f/s (853m/s) | Has Mod(s) 2 - 5, unknown differences, could be face hardening or an improved windscreen | |
| AP Mk 5 | 2,240lbs (1,016kg) | 33.6lbs (15.2kg) Exp. D | 2,720f/s (829m/s) | Muzzle Velocity roughly estimated; Taken from the 16"/45 Mk 5, not made available until 1930s but tests were conducted with this ammo and the “out of service” Mk 2 guns | |
| HC Mk 13/14 | 1,900lbs (862kg) | 153.6lbs (69.67kg) Exp. D | 2,835f/s (864m/s) | Muzzle Velocity roughly estimated; Not made available until the 1940s, but there was no HC shell for Mk 2 gun as far as I could find |
| Armor | ||
|---|---|---|
| Belt | 5-7" (127-178mm) | |
| Decks | 1.5-2.25" (38-57mm) | |
| Turrets | 6-11" (152-279mm) | |
| Barbettes | 5-9" (127-229mm) | |
| Conning Tower | 12" (305mm) |
Conclusion
I wanted to make this suggestion for the Fourth of July, but burnout and then loss of internet had held this off until now. I hope you liked it.
As the US’s only official battlecruisers, I think the Lexington-class deserves a spot in the game somewhere. I think it would fit very well behind USS Alaska, and could be the very ship that the pseudo-battlecruiser Alaska acts as a bridge to. USS United States, and the Lexington-class in general, would either be the “end” of the battlecruiser line or the “beginning” of the fast battleship line. I suppose it depends on if the ship should be after Alaska or after Arizona. This suggestion could also be seen as a blanket for the entire Lexington-class of battlecruisers, as all were laid down.
Concerning implementation, in my mind, there are two ways of potentially implementing United States, or a ship of the Lexington-class in general.
The first is as designed, exactly as the ship would have been commissioned in the 1920s. This would place the ship firmly in the year bracket as something like Mutsu or North Dakota, and would have very limited anti-air capability. It would need to mostly rely on teammates for air cover, and the lack of gun-laying radar will slow down the effective rate of fire.
The second, which I somewhat already talked about in Project Ships and Modernizations and Opinions on Paper Ships, would be to imagine a refit version similar to the standard of the USN in 1941, or another year, and add it in that way. Based what I know, such interwar refits would’ve involved removing the torpedo tubes, although maybe retaining the above-water ones, removing the casemates and faring over the mountings, replacing the 3"/50 guns with 5"/25s, addition of 1.1" and 0.5" anti-air guns, and maybe some radar. Going even further, during WW2 itself, it could be inferred that ships would be re-equipped with 5"/38s, 40mm and 20mm AA guns, better radar for both the main guns and the new secondaries, and a fantail seaplane catapult and crane. Any such modernizations would greatly boost the ship’s effectiveness and, in the case of the 1941 version, depict the ship as equal (more or less) to the Hood.
The problem is that any such reimagining is based entirely on conjecture and assumptions. No refit plans exist for ships that were never finished, and so this is extrapolating based off of what the refits for other capital ships of the era entailed. I should note, however, that such a “modernization” does already exist in game, in the case of KMS Z47 (thread). Whereas Z46 represents the Type 1936C ships as designed, Z47 is a somewhat fictional refit that overhauled the anti-air guns and added additional 37mms and 20mms. As far as I am aware, no such plan existed for the Type 1936Cs, as the ships were never finished. It does somewhat lend credence to the idea that a similar “modernization” could be done for other project ships, but it would also create a lot of openings for many people to argue over “what is right” and how it “would have been done,” etc. But, while it is easier for small guns to be added or removed, it can’t be said that a speculative refit is absolutely out of the question, since it has happened before. Also, such “modernizations” shouldn’t be modifications to be unlocked either, they’d probably have to be a whole new ship, as changes to the ships armament and capabilities would likely see it at a different BR than it’s original form, even if not changed by that much.
Personally, if Lexington-class ships are added, and subsequently some are given a theoretical modernization, I think United States should be the modernized ship purely due to her name. I think it would be fitting for a very powerful US Navy ship in the game to be named United States, after her home country.
But, the choice of a “modernization” or not is not really up to me. And due to it being speculative, I did not provide specifications as such.
Ultimately, I will assume that any project ships would be added as designed, unless it is stated otherwise. But, I leave open the question of what such a modernization would/should include, if it is done at all.
Official picture of the definitive design.
Sources
Wikipedia - Lexington-class battlecruiser
Naval-Encyclopedia - US Navy in WW2
Naval-Encyclopedia - Lexington-class aircraft carrier
Navsource - USS United States
History.Navy - Battlecruisers of the US and UK
ResearchGate - Final Design Layout for the Lexington-class battlecruiser
SecretProjects - Lexington-class battlecruiser thread
Navweaps - US 16"/50 Mk 2
Navweaps - US 16"/45 Mk 5
Navweaps - US 6"/53 Mk 12
Navweaps - US 3"/50 Mk 10
Navweaps - Torpedoes of the USN