An airstrike every 10 minutes?

[NimitsTexan]

Just curious if I am reading the rules right, but the game book lists the scale as 1 turn = 10 minutes, and allows you to (re)use carrier aircraft every 10 minutes (and every 20 minutes for land based aircraft). If I am reading it correctly, that is completely out of whack. It would take AT LEAST twice that long to (re)arm a strike, not to mention the time necessary to launch, transit, attack, return, and recover. Even assuming very short ranged carrier engagement and effecient operations, it would still take an hour or two between strikes (6-12 turns).

Again, assuming I am reading things right, maybe part of the problem people are seeing with fighters being overpowered is that the rules are allowing them to be used incorrectly, as no figher unit would be able to keep 100% of its fighters airborne all the time.

Maybe more realistic (though still imperfect) rules would be for the carrier aircraft to use the rearming markers, while land based air are limited to one strike per game.

[bayushiseni]

I too feel its a strange mechanization of the game.

I would more freely acept 3 turns on board, harassing and attacking, followed by 3 turns of carrier or 6 turns on the airfield to rearm and return.

[Joisey]

Time scale is all screwed up in this game.

[TK421]

I believe that it is an absraction needed to incorporate carriers in a game where they start every engagement about 25 miles from enemy surface ships. Carrier strikes were often launched from 150 to 200 miles.

It could take at least one game turn just to launch a squadron of aircraft, never mind transit time and rearming. It took the Yorktown some 35 minutes (two turns) to launch 39 planes at Coral Sea.Some of the Midway strike packages took almost an hour to put together over the carriers (glitches eat time).

To have "realistic" time scales for carrier aircraft you would also need, in my opinion, "realistic" map and movement scales. A mapsheet about 100 squares by 100 would do (about ten times the standard). It would be a simulation, perhaps, but not necessarily a workable game as presently configured.

Has anyone found dive bombers and torpedo bombers overpowered? I wouldn't say so. I wouldn't like to see them impaired in an effort to reel in fighters vis-a-vis destroyers. Fix fighters if we have to.

Still, if you had slightly bigger maps and a umpire with a search function, carrier re-arming could be an interesting wrinkle for jaded players.

[Autarch]

Air Operations in this game are abstracted in the extreme. There's no way 120 aircraft could attack a single ship in ten minutes without multiple midair collisions. It's possible to render air operations more realistic, but would require scaling down aircraft from there current level of 1 to 30. Which of course means you'll need a lot more planes.

[J.L.Robert]

Time scale is all screwed up in this game.

Any sort of measurement is all screwed up in this game. Time scale. Distances. Relative capabilities. Attack and defense ratings. Speeds.

These rules, without reference to time and distance, would have been awesome for the Star Wars Starship Battles game (keeping SSB's speed and facing rules). But putting it in a historical context with definitive measurements are this game's biggest weaknesses.

[Fellblade]

I like to think of it as each unit of aircraft might be worth 25 planes, but only 5 of them are on an attack mission at any one time. The other 20 are somewhere in the process of launching, recovering, rearming, or whatever. So turn 1, squadron A flies, turn 2 squadron B flies, and so on. It makes a little more sense like that, but not much.

[Scharnhorst]

I think you need to largely ignore the scale of the game. Yeah they tried to throw in some terms but as it has been pointed out they don't quite match up to the way things actually happen.

I think the gameplay mechanics work as they are and don't worry too much about how big one square is or how quick one turn is. I mean if we keep it literal than according to the game after half an hour it is night time no matter what (Myoko's Night Fighter SA), and we all know that's not true.

I just forget the measurements and enjoy the game for what it is, and I love it. If you can do the same then I think you will find the same enjoyment in it.

[Jesse_James]

Yes they are. But they (the rules) were mostly created for tournaments, which are fast, quick, easy to learn, and generally fun.

[Grandviceroy]

we rarely put anything but jeep carriers on the map. we require they spend a turn rearming.

we keep big carriers off the map. just made a small minimap the size of a piece of paper for them to deploy.

carrier planes take a turn to launch and form up. then they can fly from their off map to the map and strike (another turn), or, if they pass a simple search die roll, they can fly to the other side of the map, to the enemy off map zone, and strike (another turn). Of course, the planes have to fly BACK, which takes another turn (two if they went off the other side of the map), and then land and rearm (yet another turn)

we incorporate this flying time into the game, and again require the planes to rearm on the carriers. we often split the carriers into two task forces per side, making it harder to spot them and adding more flexibility, so one carrier group can strike the map while the other goes off map, if it wishes...
We limited the air strikes, incorporating the time/distance to fly from off map - It takes them a turn to launch, another turn to fly to the map, where they strike, a turn to fly back, a turn to land and rearm.

if they are flying to the other side of the map, to the other side's off map, add a turn of flight each way. so.


turn 1 = launch
turn 2 = fly to map and strike
turn 3= fly back
turn 4= land and rearm
turn 5=launch

or

if they are going off map
turn 1 launch
turn 2 fly to map
turn 3 fly to other side (off map) and strike
turn 4 fly back over map
turn 5 fly back off their side of the map
turn 6 land and rearm
turn 7 launch

In a 16-turn game we did yesterday each player's carriers got off three strikes....the Japanese made three strikes onto the main map. the us did two off map against the *** carriers and one on the map, that came in the last turn.

three strikes in a day is a lot for any carrier crew to manage - not to mention the pilots. I do not think any carrier managed a fourth strike in a single day, ever.

This makes carriers feel right. It makes them powerful but not overwhelming, and keeps them in perspective. It does, of course, change their point value relative to the surface ships, but we accomodate that by giving players points for the carrier and air fleets---land and carrier air, and points for surface ships and subs. We also do mostly scenarios where one player has built both fleets, and often GMs the game (better to teach new guys, roll search dice for finding off-board carriers in secret etc)

[Greyh Seer]

I think you need to largely ignore the scale of the game. Yeah they tried to throw in some terms but as it has been pointed out they don't quite match up to the way things actually happen.

I think the gameplay mechanics work as they are and don't worry too much about how big one square is or how quick one turn is. I mean if we keep it literal than according to the game after half an hour it is night time no matter what (Myoko's Night Fighter SA), and we all know that's not true.

I just forget the measurements and enjoy the game for what it is, and I love it. If you can do the same then I think you will find the same enjoyment in it.

This I totally agree with. In order to make a GAME fun and playable you have to limit the variables into very controllable and small fields.

Real life has way to many variables to play a game with and the rules would become so complicated that the time and effort to learn them would make the game unprofitable, and I would argue, not fun to play.

[Grandviceroy]

the BASIC rules as WRITTEN are a nice little 'game' --- and yes, they could be starships for all it matters.

BUT...and this is a big BUT....

they are a WONDERFUL starting point to make a "real" naval game.

Most guys who play this seem to have house rules...either their own, or using the "designers" rules, with perhaps a few extra.

Add in those, and you have a magnificent, elegant and very good game...in my opinion, the best naval game i have ever played (and i have played a lot over 40 years, from fletcher pratt and harpoon to seekrieg). It plays well, fun and fast, lets you do big battles (historical or what ifs or battles you just make up).

I have introduced this game to THREE clubs, plus friends. Each club has asked me to bring it again...and i have done so repeatedly. Yesterday, i did the biggest game yet. 900 points a side. *** vs us. a 'what if' relief of Tarawa in late 43. (Think Leyte but where the japanese actually stand a chance). Six players, off-map carrier fleets, spotting, big 5x8 battle map ...over 100 ships, 40 planes and six guys who had NEVER played the rules before, and me GM'ing.

It was over in under four hours. And everyone, even the side that lost (the us) had a great time...and asked me to bring war at sea back for another club meeting.

This is a great set of rules -- once you add in a few modifications.....

[J.L.Robert]

I'm not arguing the overall merits of this game. I agree that, as the rules stand, it's a fast-playing game, and that's a benefit to any game these days.

But, it should be warned to those seeking historically-accurate games that this one will not satisfy their needs. Why some gamers would expect something as detailed as Avalanche's "Second World War at Sea" series from a collectibles game, I'll never know.

But, for those who want a light, entertaining game, they should set aside accuracy for gameplay and enjoy this one.

[Joisey]

This is a nice system, but with such long attack cycles I wonder if the air capacity of the carriers shouldn't be doubled.

[Grandviceroy]

the basic system is nice...but it is not a naval game...it bears little resemblance to a naval action.

by adding in just a few -- four, six or at most eight short rules...four of which the designer himself proposed...it becomes not just a naval game, but a GOOD naval game.

...and one that is not burdened by all of the detail and record keeping and miniutiae of many other naval games...things that turned me off from many of those games.

adding in these few rules does not slow the game down, does not complicate it, does not make it into one of those highly detailed games....what it does is let you play big naval battles...and we do BIG games...900 pts a side yesterday, 6 guys, me GMing (as none of the six had played before) and 16 turns and game done in under four hours. ...and it lets you play them so they at least LOOK and FEEL like NAVAL battles.

Yeah, i have played a lot of the highly-detailed games, and they are wonderful exercises in history and command and all of that, but in my opinion, they tend to fall down as games...unless of course that is the kind of game you like (and for those guys, that is fine, and many of them will not like war at sea, no matter how much we add...but i am not trying to go for them...and i did try with one of my old 'salts'....but for guys who are only casual naval gamers, or new to naval gaming, or who want to game navy but were turned off by the more detailed stuff....this is a good system, PROVIDED you add at least a few things so that you do not have dancing battleships that spin on a dime, and move and fire 360 degrees, or destroyers that have no chance in a fleet battle and carriers that spew endless streams of planes turn in turn out.....or fighters that sink entire fleets.

no, the basic rules are just that. very basic. a great STARTING point. a great INTRO....and for that, i salute the designer.

For making a basic game we can easily mod into a GOOD naval game...i do more than salute him. As one game designer to anohter (and i have had 15 of my designs published) I award him a medal.

[magister]

I can agree that the time, distance, detail scale for this game is abstract. But, that is one of the major advantages for the game. Every game must balance between playability and accuracy. I have played games that do take into account every small detail. They tend to have hardbound rule books, a maze of charts, a long learning curve, and are not very inviting to new players. (SPI's War in the pacific comes to mind. The board took into account the curvature of the earth for distances. Hexes at the equator were 70 km whereas only 50 km near the poles.) But before you try to make extra rules for time and distance; didn’t the stacking limits seem a bit unrealistic to you? (Only 2 ships in a 25,000,000 sq. yard area) I think that the scale should be considered an abstraction as well.
The beauty of this game is that it is simple. Last night we had a 6 person game going, and a new person, who was watching, asked when the next shipment of starter packs would be in. He had learned all the rules, and was interested in playing after watching one game!

['Warspite']

This I totally agree with. In order to make a GAME fun and playable you have to limit the variables into very controllable and small fields.

Real life has way to many variables to play a game with and the rules would become so complicated that the time and effort to learn them would make the game unprofitable, and I would argue, not fun to play.


To put it bluntly the game is 'quick and dirty' but it does have the flavour of real life.

I seem to recall that Sea Strike - table game set in the late 1970s and postulating many scenarios later found in the 1982 Falklands Conflict - also used aircraft arriving rather more quickly that they should.

[dracos42]

Grandviceroy, you need to post the details of your relief of Tarawa scenario. The forces involved, what happened, all the juicy details you can remember. :)

Mike L.

[Grandviceroy]

The Decisive Battle
CGC June 9, 2007

It is late-1943 American forces are invading Tarawa. The Japanese sail to stop them – and to bring about the one great decisive battle they long for.

. Akagi, thought sunk at Midway, was only badly damaged – and has since been repaired. Construction on Shinano has been hastened, and Mogami’s conversion to a hybrid cruiser-carrier is complete. Although Japan has lost two battleships off Guadalcanal, they were of a larger and older class – and thus all four Kongo-class battlecruisers are available, as are Yamato and Mushashi.

On the American side, Enterprise, Hornet, Wasp and Lexington are at sea, as are a trio of the new light and escort carriers. Iowa has joined the fleet, along with the battlewagons Colorado, Tennessee and Washington.

Imperial forces seek nothing less than the destruction of the US Navy, and have brought fleet oilers to allow them to stay at sea. They have also brought troop transports to reinforce the garrison.

Dispositions are as follows:

US
Invading Tarawa:
-8 transports (at anchor, immobile)
-BB Tennessee
-BB-California (2nd Tenn.)
-BB-Washington
CA-Baltimore
CA-Boston (2nd Balt.)
CA-St. Paul (3rd Balt)
DD Division One: 4 Fletcher-class

ASW Screening Force (West of Tarawa)
CA Salt Lake City
CL Boise
CL Brooklyn (2nd Boise)
DD Division Two: 4 Geary (Sam Roberts) DE
DD Division Three 5 Geary (Sam Roberts) DE

Submarine Picket Line (Far Western approaches)
(SUBMERGED – SECRET deployment)
4 Gato-class Submarines (USS-Barb models)

Close Air Support Force
(Northeast of Tarawa)
CVL Princeton
CVE Coral Sea (St. Lo class)
CVE Casablanca (St. Lo class)
-2 Wildcats
CA Pensacola (2nd Salt Lake)
CL Nashville (3rd Boise)
DD Division Four: 4 Fletcher DD

TF1 (Off board)
BB Iowa
CV Enterprise
CV Hornet
-2 wildcat, 2 devastator, 2 dauntless
CLAA Atlanta
DD Division Five: 4 Fletcher DD

TF2 (Off board)
CV Wasp
CV Lexington
-2 wildcat, 2 devastator, 2 dauntless
CLAA Juneau (2nd Atlanta)
DD Division Six: 4 Fletcher DD
Search Assets: 3 PBY

IJN
Imperial Japanese Players may organize task forces at their discretion.
Carrier groups that come on board are spotted. Carrier groups that remain off-board may be hidden.

Carriers:
CV Akagi, Zuikako, Shokaku, Shinano
CVL Hosho, Shoho, Zuiho
With 6 Zero, 5 Val, 4 Kate

Battleships:
BB Yamato, BB Mushashi
BC Kongo, Hiei, Kirishima, Haruna (all use Kongo models)

Heavy Cruisers:
CA Tone, Chikuma (Tone models)
CA Myoko, Nachi, Ashigara, Haguro (use Myoko models)
CA-CVE Hybrid Mogami….with 1 Zero

Light Cruisers:
CL Jintsu, Sendai, Naka, Yubari (Jintsu model)

DD
22 Kagero-class (Yukikaze)

4-Fleet Oilers: (loss of which reduces ability to remain at sea)
2- Transports (Special Naval Landing Force reinforcements)

SCOUT FORCE:
3 1-19 class Submarines, 1 Betty Long-Range Bomber


Type US IJN
CV 4 4
CVE/CVL 3 3
BB 4 2
BC - 4
CA 5 7
CL 5 4
DD 16 22
DE 9 -
SS 4 3
TR 8 6
Fighters 6 7
Strike Air 8 9
Search 3 1
Ships/Planes
Points 58/17
970 55/17
1,090
***
I have 1:2000 Furuta models of Mogami (with the rear flight deck), Shinano (the big armored carrier) and Hosho. I also have an old Lexington, an antique metal model, oddly enough to scale...i repainted it, and i made up stats for them:

(i used the Lexington as she was in 1941, before they removed the 8" guns --yes, 8" guns -- and she was big and well armored, being built on a cruiser hull)

Lexington:
35 points, speed 2
carries 4 planes
main gun 9-9-8-6
secondary 5-5-3
AA 7
armor 6, vital 12, hull 5
=torp. def 1.
damage control
-survivor

Hosho CVL
9 points, speed 2
carries 1 plane
main gun 4-4-3
AA 8
armor 1, vital 6, hull 3
no special

Shinano
armored carrier
25 points, speed 2
carries 3 planes
main gun 7-7-6-5
secondary 4-4-3
AA 8
Armor 5, vital 11, hull 5
torp def 1

Mogami
CA-hybrid cvl
25 points, speed 2
carries 1 aircraft
main gun 8-8-7-6
secondary 4-4-3
AA 7
Torp 3-3-2-1
Armor 3, vital 9, hull 3
long lance, scout cruiser, determination

--i did not give the japanese any air bonuses, as these were 43-on carriers (ie post midway). i gave lady lex the specials to represent how she seemed to miraculously stay afloat.

I made a simple box grid around the playing map, and for searches i gave the players die rolls. roll 2d6. 7 or better and your scout would tell you if the box was empty or something was there. if they found something, roll again. the better the roll, the more i told them (anything from "i see something" to "big ship" to, well, you see 2 carriers, 4 dd etc and they are heading east....because it took two turns to move across an off board box, and if they were on the move they had to tell me as moderator.

i even had rolls to see if search planes met cap or were spotted (the old i see you seeing me) and the same for subs...we even had one off-board sub battle with a pair of subs popping up near a *** carrier TF...the carriers of course outran the subs while the yukikazes tried to chase the subs down...and failed, because of their lousy asw....gato class subs vs yukikazes is not a good match for the japanese...it is one where they need to run away...

[Admiral Scheer]

The Decisive Battle
CGC June 9, 2007

It is late-1943 American forces are invading Tarawa. The Japanese sail to stop them – and to bring about the one great decisive battle they long for.

. Akagi, thought sunk at Midway, was only badly damaged – and has since been repaired. Construction on Shinano has been hastened, and Mogami’s conversion to a hybrid cruiser-carrier is complete. Although Japan has lost two battleships off Guadalcanal, they were of a larger and older class – and thus all four Kongo-class battlecruisers are available, as are Yamato and Mushashi.

On the American side, Enterprise, Hornet, Wasp and Lexington are at sea, as are a trio of the new light and escort carriers. Iowa has joined the fleet, along with the battlewagons Colorado, Tennessee and Washington.

Imperial forces seek nothing less than the destruction of the US Navy, and have brought fleet oilers to allow them to stay at sea. They have also brought troop transports to reinforce the garrison.

Dispositions are as follows:

US
Invading Tarawa:
-8 transports (at anchor, immobile)
-BB Tennessee
-BB-California (2nd Tenn.)
-BB-Washington
CA-Baltimore
CA-Boston (2nd Balt.)
CA-St. Paul (3rd Balt)
DD Division One: 4 Fletcher-class

ASW Screening Force (West of Tarawa)
CA Salt Lake City
CL Boise
CL Brooklyn (2nd Boise)
DD Division Two: 4 Geary (Sam Roberts) DE
DD Division Three 5 Geary (Sam Roberts) DE

Submarine Picket Line (Far Western approaches)
(SUBMERGED – SECRET deployment)
4 Gato-class Submarines (USS-Barb models)

Close Air Support Force
(Northeast of Tarawa)
CVL Princeton
CVE Coral Sea (St. Lo class)
CVE Casablanca (St. Lo class)
-2 Wildcats
CA Pensacola (2nd Salt Lake)
CL Nashville (3rd Boise)
DD Division Four: 4 Fletcher DD

TF1 (Off board)
BB Iowa
CV Enterprise
CV Hornet
-2 wildcat, 2 devastator, 2 dauntless
CLAA Atlanta
DD Division Five: 4 Fletcher DD

TF2 (Off board)
CV Wasp
CV Lexington
-2 wildcat, 2 devastator, 2 dauntless
CLAA Juneau (2nd Atlanta)
DD Division Six: 4 Fletcher DD
Search Assets: 3 PBY

IJN
Imperial Japanese Players may organize task forces at their discretion.
Carrier groups that come on board are spotted. Carrier groups that remain off-board may be hidden.

Carriers:
CV Akagi, Zuikako, Shokaku, Shinano
CVL Hosho, Shoho, Zuiho
With 6 Zero, 5 Val, 4 Kate

Battleships:
BB Yamato, BB Mushashi
BC Kongo, Hiei, Kirishima, Haruna (all use Kongo models)

Heavy Cruisers:
CA Tone, Chikuma (Tone models)
CA Myoko, Nachi, Ashigara, Haguro (use Myoko models)
CA-CVE Hybrid Mogami….with 1 Zero

Light Cruisers:
CL Jintsu, Sendai, Naka, Yubari (Jintsu model)

DD
22 Kagero-class (Yukikaze)

4-Fleet Oilers: (loss of which reduces ability to remain at sea)
2- Transports (Special Naval Landing Force reinforcements)

SCOUT FORCE:
3 1-19 class Submarines, 1 Betty Long-Range Bomber


Type US IJN
CV 4 4
CVE/CVL 3 3
BB 4 2
BC - 4
CA 5 7
CL 5 4
DD 16 22
DE 9 -
SS 4 3
TR 8 6
Fighters 6 7
Strike Air 8 9
Search 3 1
Ships/Planes
Points 58/17
970 55/17
1,090
***
I have 1:2000 Furuta models of Mogami (with the rear flight deck), Shinano (the big armored carrier) and Hosho. I also have an old Lexington, an antique metal model, oddly enough to scale...i repainted it, and i made up stats for them:

(i used the Lexington as she was in 1941, before they removed the 8" guns --yes, 8" guns -- and she was big and well armored, being built on a cruiser hull)

Lexington:
35 points, speed 2
carries 4 planes
main gun 9-9-8-6
secondary 5-5-3
AA 7
armor 6, vital 12, hull 5
=torp. def 1.
damage control
-survivor

Hosho CVL
9 points, speed 2
carries 1 plane
main gun 4-4-3
AA 8
armor 1, vital 6, hull 3
no special

Shinano
armored carrier
25 points, speed 2
carries 3 planes
main gun 7-7-6-5
secondary 4-4-3
AA 8
Armor 5, vital 11, hull 5
torp def 1

Mogami
CA-hybrid cvl
25 points, speed 2
carries 1 aircraft
main gun 8-8-7-6
secondary 4-4-3
AA 7
Torp 3-3-2-1
Armor 3, vital 9, hull 3
long lance, scout cruiser, determination

--i did not give the japanese any air bonuses, as these were 43-on carriers (ie post midway). i gave lady lex the specials to represent how she seemed to miraculously stay afloat.

I made a simple box grid around the playing map, and for searches i gave the players die rolls. roll 2d6. 7 or better and your scout would tell you if the box was empty or something was there. if they found something, roll again. the better the roll, the more i told them (anything from "i see something" to "big ship" to, well, you see 2 carriers, 4 dd etc and they are heading east....because it took two turns to move across an off board box, and if they were on the move they had to tell me as moderator.

i even had rolls to see if search planes met cap or were spotted (the old i see you seeing me) and the same for subs...we even had one off-board sub battle with a pair of subs popping up near a *** carrier TF...the carriers of course outran the subs while the yukikazes tried to chase the subs down...and failed, because of their lousy asw....gato class subs vs yukikazes is not a good match for the japanese...it is one where they need to run away...

That is one huge battle. :eek:

[Grandviceroy]

it may sound like a huge battle, but i set it up, taught the game, ran it, complete with searches and hidden movement, and we did 16 turns...and all in four hours.

the american carrier task forces and escorts were off board -- and since they were never attacked, we never even put them out.

the japanese carrier fleets were both attacked, twice each by air, one once by a pair of subs, and we put them out on little mini-maps (8.5 x 11 piece of card stock i grided).

so right there are a lot of ships that we either never had to move or worry about shooting...

the american transports (8) with four destroyers that stayed with them for AA and ASW protection never moved or shot...until the very last turn

the jeep carriers came under attack once, and only in the last few turns did they even move....and their escorts stayed with them

also, the japanese only moved the four kongos with four cruisers and six destroyers onto the map.....this was the 'bait' and this is what engaged the americans most of the game.....until the REAL japanese attack developed...which was the yamatos and their cruisers, destroyers and transports coming in from the south, right near tarawa, BEHIND the US battleline.....on turn 13. (The Japanese had moved them on the southern off-map boxes....boxes the americans never bothered to send scout planes, pbys or subs to look at, as once they found the *** carrier fleets they put all of their assets into making sure they stayed found)

so, while it looks big, with the rearm and flight times, there were only three air strikes per side per game, the kongos and us battleline spent a lot of time maneuvering (the japanese also made liberal use of smoke, as they were trying to lure the americans too them, away from tarawa) and they really only got into a gunfight around turn 10.

(we allow all dd/de to make smoke, and to make it in the movement phase, putting smoke down in each box they enter)

the us subs only fought once - and that was just two of the four, and only for two quick rounds, and the japanese subs never even tried to approach the us carriers (one *** sub vs 4 fletchers....ha ha ha....those aren't even kamikaze odds)

it was not as if we had 2000 points of air and sea duking it out turn after turn after turn on a one or two sheet WaS map. We had a big 5 x 8 map (i made it from a light blue k-mart tablecloth, $8)...no, i may be enthusiastic about this game but i am not crazy....well, not totally crazy....

[Captain Hydro]

Here is more info on the Lexington class carriers:
Online Library of Selected Images:
-- U.S. NAVY SHIP TYPES -- BATTLE CRUISERS --
Lexington Class (CC-1 through CC-6)
1917-1919 Building Programs. Construction cancelled in 1923.
The six battle cruisers of the Lexington class, authorized under the 1917-1919 building programs, were the only ships of their type ever ordered by the U.S. Navy. Intended as fast combat scouts for the battle fleet, these large ships had a prolonged development history. Their original 1916 design was to displace 34,300 tons with a main battery of ten 14-inch guns, rather light armor, seven smokestacks with many of the boilers above the armored deck, and a speed of 35 knots. By 1919, the plans had been recast on the basis of World War I experience to produce larger ships armed with 16-inch guns, much better protection, two smokestacks with all boilers below the armored deck, and a somewhat lower speed.

Construction of the Lexington class ships was held up by other priorities during the First World War, and none of them were laid down until mid-1920. The following year's naval limitations conference in Washington, D.C., had these expensive battle cruisers, and their Japanese and British contemporaries, among its main targets. Following adoption of the Washington Treaty, their construction was stopped in February 1922. The treaty allowed the conversion of two of the battle cruiser hulls to the aircraft carriers Lexington (CV-2) and Saratoga (CV-3). The other four were formally cancelled in August 1923 and scrapped on their building ways.

The Lexington class consisted of six ships, under construction at four locations:


Lexington (CC-1). Keel laid at Quincy, Massachusetts, January 1921. Became the aircraft carrier CV-2.

Constellation (CC-2). Keel laid at Newport News, Virginia, August 1920. Cancelled and scrapped.

Saratoga (CC-3). Keel laid at Camden, New Jersey, September 1920. Became the aircraft carrier CV-3.

Ranger (CC-4). Keel laid at Newport News, Virginia, June 1921. Cancelled and scrapped.

Constitution (CC-5). Keel laid at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 1920. Cancelled and scrapped.

United States (CC-6). Keel laid at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 1920. Cancelled and scrapped.


Original (1916) Battle Cruiser Numbers 1 - 4 design characteristics:

Displacement: 34,300 tons

Dimensions: 874' (length overall); 90'11" (maximum beam)

Powerplant: 180,000 horsepower steam turbines with electric drive, producing a 35 knot maximum speed

Armament (Main Battery): Ten 14"/50 guns in two twin (turret #s 1 & 4) and two triple (turret #s 2 & 3) turrets

Armament (Secondary Battery): Eighteen 5"/51 guns in single mountings (nine guns on each side of the ship)

Definitive (1919) Lexington class (Battle Cruiser Numbers 1 - 6) design characteristics:

Displacement: 43,500 tons

Dimensions: 874' (length overall); 105'5" (maximum beam)

Powerplant: 180,000 horsepower steam turbines with electric drive, producing a 33.25 knot maximum speed

Armament (Main Battery): Eight 16"/50 guns in four twin turrets

Armament (Secondary Battery): Sixteen 6"/53 guns in single mountings (eight guns on each side of the ship)

This page features all our images concerning the Lexington class battle cruiser designs and provides links to what views we have of the individual ships under construction.

For coverage of other classes of U.S. Navy battleships, see: Battleships -- Overview and Special Image Selection.





If you want higher resolution reproductions than the digital images presented here, see: "How to Obtain Photographic Reproductions."


Click on the small photograph to prompt a larger view of the same image.

Photo #: NH 41960

U.S. Battle Cruisers Nos. 1 - 4

Artwork by F. Muller, circa 1916, depicting the original design adopted for these ships.

U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph.

Online Image: 75KB; 900 x 355 pixels

Note: The original print for this photograph has a vertical crack through its middle.

Photo #: NH 61245

Lexington Class (CC-1 through CC-6)Battle Cruiser

Artwork by F. Muller, circa 1919, depicting the definitive design for these ships, whose construction was cancelled under the Washington Naval Limitations Treaty of 1922.

U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph.

Online Image: 51KB; 740 x 325 pixels

Photo #: NH 41961

U.S. Battle Cruisers Nos. 1 - 6

Contemporary photograph of a painting by Louise Larned, 1922, depicting the definitive design of these ships, whose construction was cancelled under the Washington Naval Limitations Treaty.

U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph.

Online Image: 75KB; 740 x 580 pixels

Photo #: NH 99411

U.S. Battle Cruisers Nos. 1 - 6

Silhouette and table of principal characteristics for the definitive design of these ships, circa 1920.

U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph.

Online Image: 39KB; 900 x 355 pixels

Photo #: 80-WP-975

"New Naval Vessels Now Building for Our Fleet"

Poster from the "What the Navy is Doing" series, published by the Navy Recruiting Bureau, New York, circa 1919.
It depicts the Lexington (CC-1) class battle cruisers and South Dakota (BB-49) class battleships then planned or in early stages of construction. These twelve ships were cancelled under the naval limitations treaty of 1922.

Photograph from the Collections of the U.S. National Archives.

Online Image: 100KB; 740 x 650 pixels

Photo #: 80-WP-1002

"16 Inch Guns for Our Dreadnaughts"

Poster from the "What the Navy is Doing" series, published by the Navy Recruiting Bureau, New York, circa 1919.
It depicts the manufacture of 16"/50 guns at the Washington Navy Yard, D.C., for installation in the Lexington (CC-1) class battle cruisers and South Dakota (BB-49) class battleships then planned or in early stages of construction. Also shown are pictures of the battle cruiser design, a firing test at Indian Head, Maryland, and the effect of 16-inch shells on heavy armor.

Photograph from the Collections of the U.S. National Archives.

Online Image: 103KB; 740 x 650 pixels

Photo #: NH 81481

Sixteen-inch, 50 Caliber, Mark 2, Mod. 1 Gun Barrel

On display in East Willard Park, Washington Navy Yard, D.C., in October 1972. This gun is Number 111, built at the Washington Navy Yard in 1922 for planned installation on the abortive South Dakota (BB 49-54) class battleships and Lexington (CC 1-6) class battle cruisers.
Note railway trucks supporting the gun barrel.
The two sixteen-inch projectiles displayed alongside the gun are inert shells fired by USS New Jersey into San Clemente Island, California, during shore bombardment practice in 1968.

U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph.

Online Image: 161KB; 740 x 615 pixels

Photo #: NH 81482

Sixteen-inch, 50 Caliber, Mark 2, Mod. 1 Gun Barrel

On display in East Willard Park, Washington Navy Yard, D.C., in October 1972. This gun is Number 111, built at the Washington Navy Yard in 1922 for planned installation on the abortive South Dakota (BB 49-54) class battleships and Lexington (CC 1-6) class battle cruisers.
Note railway trucks supporting the gun barrel.
The two sixteen-inch projectiles displayed alongside the gun are inert shells fired by USS New Jersey into San Clemente Island, California, during shore bombardment practice in 1968.

U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph.

Online Image: 181KB; 740 x 615 pixels

Photo #: 80-CF-395b

Rear Admiral David W. Taylor, USN (left), Chief of the Bureau of Construction and Repair, and
Rear Admiral John K. Robison, USN (right), Chief of the Bureau of Engineering,

Hold a model of the battle cruisers (CC-1 class) then under construction, 8 March 1922. In the foreground is a model of an aircraft carrier design converted from the battle cruiser hull. This photo illustrates the genesis of the Lexington (CV-2) class aircraft carrier design.
Standing in the background are (from left to right):
Rear Admiral William A. Moffett, USN, Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics;
Congressman Frederick C. Hicks, of New York;
Congressman Clark Burdick, of Rhode Island; and
Congressman Philip D. Swing, of California.
Photographed at the Navy Department by Harris & Ewing.

Photograph from Department of the Navy collections in the U.S. National Archives.

Online Image: 86KB; 740 x 540 pixels

Reproductions of this image may also be available through the National Archives photographic reproduction system.



For coverage of other classes of U.S. Navy battleships, see: Battleships -- Overview and Special Image Selection.





If you want higher resolution reproductions than the digital images presented here, see: "How to Obtain Photographic Reproductions."






Return to Naval Historical Center home page.

Page made 20 February 2000
New images added and text revised 26 June 2004