WesWorld

I assume the crane for the seaplanes can be folded out of the way - in that case X turret's firing arc is OK.

As for Q turret, using the ol' Eyeball Mk.1 it has better than 120° arc on each beam, which isn't too bad. And (assuming super-heavy 14" shells) A and X turret between them have roughly the same punch as 'Ood, so I actually kinda like the configuration.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
If they were to look at Hood and make something like that, they would not have to worry about any nation calling those battle cruiser 'ugly'. That way America does not have to start wasting money on a war with the insulting nation.

iunno, I've seen Canis' LDs of an American "Hood Type" on his site....

Quoted

Originally posted by Swamphen
As for Q turret, using the ol' Eyeball Mk.1 it has better than 120° arc on each beam, which isn't too bad. And (assuming super-heavy 14" shells) A and X turret between them have roughly the same punch as 'Ood, so I actually kinda like the configuration.

But there's that pesky 60° aft arc that might be useful when the carriers you're escorting are fleeing at high speed from mischievous Kongos or whatnot. :x

Quoted

iunno, I've seen Canis' LDs of an American "Hood Type" on his site....

I'm almost too afraid to take a look...
...
...
...

"Designs for fast battleships from the early 1930's. The second design is described as a "Hood Type" battleship."
Looks better than that other one (if this is the one you are referring to). :-)

Now that's ugly! O_O

Quoted

But there's that pesky 60° aft arc that might be useful when the carriers you're escorting are fleeing at high speed from mischievous Kongos or whatnot. :x

Simple - the BCs turn broadside to head 'em off at the pass. ;-)

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
Looks better than that other one (if this is the one you are referring to). :-)

Better than Chesapeake, yeah, but not exactly in the Hood department looks-wise, in my humble opinion.

Quoted

Originally posted by Swamphen
Simple - the BCs turn broadside to head 'em off at the pass. ;-)

A zig-zag retreat course? Kinda negates any speed advantages... Like I've said, my main problem with the design (discounting looks :x ), is that it's not well thought out in light of it's stated mission. While yes, it could adapt and turn broadside, but since the ship is being designed from the outset with this specific mission in mind, it shouldn't be designed with a built-in handicap to that mission.

This is my current drawing of the Lexington after her planned mid 1930's reconstruction. I'm still debating the funnel design and may go back to the origninal twin funnels. I'm also thinking of slightly reducing her speed to 31 or 30 kts in favor of increased deck armor. Another option for BC-1933 would be to upgrade the Lexington design, possibly replacing the four triple 14" turrets with three quads. That would come out in the 38-39K ton range.

USS Lexington, United States Battlecruiser laid down 1919 (Engine 1937)

Displacement:
39,456 t light; 41,481 t standard; 44,504 t normal; 46,922 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
869.56 ft / 850.00 ft x 100.00 ft (Bulges 105.00 ft) x 32.50 ft (normal load)
265.04 m / 259.08 m x 30.48 m (Bulges 32.00 m) x 9.91 m

Armament:
12 - 14.00" / 356 mm guns (4x3 guns), 1,575.00lbs / 714.41kg shells, 1919 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
20 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (10x2 guns), 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1937 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 6 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm guns (4x4 guns), 0.67lbs / 0.30kg shells, 1937 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
12 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1937 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 20,161 lbs / 9,145 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 624.00 ft / 190.20 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 113 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
3.00" / 76 mm 476.00 ft / 145.08 m 29.56 ft / 9.01 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 13.0" / 330 mm 6.00" / 152 mm 12.0" / 305 mm
2nd: 1.25" / 32 mm 1.25" / 32 mm 1.25" / 32 mm

- Armour deck: 5.00" / 127 mm, Conning tower: 12.00" / 305 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 149,742 shp / 111,708 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,441 tons

Complement:
1,531 - 1,991

Cost:
£8.341 million / $33.366 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,216 tons, 5.0 %
Armour: 14,515 tons, 32.6 %
- Belts: 3,723 tons, 8.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,562 tons, 3.5 %
- Armament: 3,484 tons, 7.8 %
- Armour Deck: 5,421 tons, 12.2 %
- Conning Tower: 325 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 4,150 tons, 9.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 18,426 tons, 41.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,048 tons, 11.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 0.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
63,631 lbs / 28,862 Kg = 46.4 x 14.0 " / 356 mm shells or 10.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
Metacentric height 5.9 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 18.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.82
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.21

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck
Block coefficient: 0.537
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.10 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 29.15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 34.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 29.00 ft / 8.84 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
- Mid (50 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Quarterdeck (18 %): 16.00 ft / 4.88 m (23.00 ft / 7.01 m before break)
- Stern: 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Average freeboard: 22.72 ft / 6.92 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 86.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 171.3 %
Waterplane Area: 58,603 Square feet or 5,444 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 109 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 215 lbs/sq ft or 1,049 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.15
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

If you're planning to be modernizing the carriers at the same time, it might be cost efficient and expedient to use the the same / similar components. If not, I'd say that while it's nice to toy with the idea of the carriers and battleships that started as the same design sharing components like that, I'd have to say there's a reason why no battleship (or any ship other than a carrier, come to think of it) ever had a single huge funnel like that. The North Carolina was originally designed with one, but reverted to two relatively small stacks by the time she was built. It might be a target profile issue, or a battle damage issue. That funnel is a large target, and what're the results of a 8 inch or larger shell going through a stack? Especially something like a 14 inch shell exploding somewhere in the stack, and collapsing it? o.O

I was thinking something along the lines of the following. Ignore the lower figure, I haven't changed it. Nor, for that matter, have I made much effort to attend to details in the side view that I did play with. Just want to show the general notion I had.

Looks interesting. Another option would be to move a couple of the 5" guns to the centerline and move the catapults to the midship area, clearing the fantail arcs.

Looks a bit better than the Chesapeake, but still on the ugly side. If you're building a bigger ship, might as well be a Lexington follow-on.

Hey, Rocky! The side and top view don't match! ;-)
(Just had to say it, eventhough you have mentioned it)
Actually, for some reason stuffing the upper works of the Intrepid onto the Lexington hull makes it look much more acceptable...
... so is the hull to blame for the ugliness of the original design?

When I was trying to pattern a CA after the Chesapeake design, I finally concluded that my CA/BB type superstructures were more suited to a...vertically stacked (?) layout than a stretched out, non-superfiring layout. Trying to incorporate features of both just leads to problems.

I think that's also true of a lot of American capital ship designs; but the Lexingtons are long, sleek ships with low-ish profiles, so I think their lines work with a Chesapeake layout.

Whether it's practical is another matter, but I do still kinda like Canis' original drawing as a very business-like capital ship.