Lexington Class: Part One

Comments · 48

• AL

  @aluminumfence · 5 years ago

  "How many funnels...all. All the funnels." -Drachinifel

  76

• SN

  @snupjeve · 5 years ago

  just looked back on this one and the intro gets me right here.  It was a hard year; am very glad you are still here and doing this today.  Appreciate all the content you make

  26

• RO

  @robertstone9988 · 5 years ago

  I wish I had a billion dollars to give you Ryan. Hang in there guys all your hard work is appreciated and I hope I get you get the money you need to not only keep the ship in ship shape but to take care of yourself and your families.

  13

• LE

  @lexmaximaguy8788 · 5 years ago

  How many funnels you need?<br><br>navy: How much material you got? Oh and yes...

  17

• CH

  @chuckw1113 · 5 years ago

  Interestingly, the Lexington Class pioneered a much more extensive torpedo defense system, that was incorporated into the US Fast battleship classes in the 1940s. The system worked quite well when Lexington was struck by two torpedoes at Coral Sea, but was able to resume operations within a short time.

  17

• HA

  @harryplummer6356 · 3 years ago

  So sorry to hear this bad news. I have learned so much. I wish you all the best.

  2

• ST

  @studentjohn35 · 3 years ago

  One factor in the Lexington design: USN observers in 1915-1916 were very impressed with SMS Derfflinger. Interesting that the USN Battlecruiser design produced progressively larger and larger ships, that had all Derfflinger&apos;s weaknesses and none of her strengths.

  2

• WI

  @Will-SFC06 · 3 years ago

  Thanks and keep the lights on!

  2

• AI

  @aidan11162 · 6 years ago

  We all know that the more stacks you have the faster you go lol

  11

• BR

  @brianfieler2332 · 6 years ago

  What we need here are more smoke stacks!

  7

• AL

  @alisterbennett · 5 years ago

  I know we have had 100 years believing that the British battle cruisers blew up because of their thinner armor... but it is not entirely true.<br>The cause was a combination of: RN emphasis on high rate of fire - leading to accumulating cordite charges in the turrets, and not closing the flash protection doors as designed; The characteristics of their propellant... Cordite tended to explodes a lot easier than the German propellant when exposed to fire &amp; pressure ... No German ship exploded like their British equivalents, even when they were on fire (e.g. Muller) . &nbsp; Also it has long been noted that the German AP shells were better than the British. <br>So: Hits on the turrets of the BCs in action resulted in magazine explosions (with the exception of HMS New Zealand - she was a lucky ship..)

  5

• SE

  @sergarlantyrell7847 · 4 years ago

  If a 7&quot; belt inclined at 11° was thought to be equivalent to 9&quot; armour, that suggests that the shell is hitting at around a 28° angle, which, from a British 15&quot; gun, is equivalent to around 23,000 yds. A 9&quot; vertical plate at that range is equivalent to around 10.2&quot;.<br>But I doubt engagements would be so long-ranged.<br><br>Ultimately, this is all academic, the 11&quot; guns used against British battlecruisers at Jutland weren&apos;t what post-war battlecruisers would have to face, the standard had moved on.

  1