Republic of Texas

[emperor_andreas]

Very, very nice work! Can't wait for the next period!

[Redhorse]

I don't think it's cool to post those FD aircraft with the crediting removed though.

They're credited in earlier posts on the individual aircraft.

[jabba]

I don't think it's cool to post those FD aircraft with the crediting removed though.

They're credited in earlier posts on the individual aircraft.

I know, but I think the point is still valid.

[Colosseum]

Cool stuff but definitely need to preserve the credits on the FD stuff. I'd just add the author name below each - then it would be fine.

Great work!

[Redhorse]

need to preserve the credits on the FD stuff

Credits added.

[nighthunter]

Splendid work on everything, Red, can't wait to see what your first full canopy fighter will be...

[macseann]

it seems a little under gunned for a ship built in the Americas during the 30's.

They're not if you compare the US Navy's operational requirements with the Texas Navy's requirements. The US Navy's destroyers are built to operate in the Pacific, which needs a long-range hull. A long-range hull can accommodate more guns. The same principle can be seen in European destroyers in countries with Pacific colonies. I don't have to venture out beyond the Atlantic, so my operational range is shorter.

And I've got a manpower limit. I can man more ships if they're a little smaller than their US counterparts.

There's precedent for this in terms of design concept, space limits, and armament. Sweden's Ehrensköld class had 3 guns and 6 torpedo tubes, on a limited displacement and complement. Presumably the Texas destroyers would need a bit more range since the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean is considerably larger than the Baltic.

[Redhorse]

1936 - Texas celebrates its Centennial.

The Navy rebuilds the first of the Pecos Class light cruisers, with mixed results:



Like their older cousins, the Nueces Class, the limitations of their design were painfully evident when it came time to rebuild them.

The greatest problem was with the secondary battery. The Pecos Class had been built with 3"50 anti-aircraft guns; the Design Bureau wanted to replace them with the new 5"/38s that were available and install a director to control them. But the ship's internal arrangement could not be adapted for protected magazines and the ammunition hoists. That part of the plan had to be deleted and the 3"/50s retained.

The compromise was to adopt a newer 6" dual purpose gun in the main battery and modify the turrets to allow greater elevation. The director for the 5"/38 was modified and installed. The adaptations worked under test conditions, but would only be marginally effective in combat. The British would have the same problems with the 6" guns on the Nelson and Rodney - they could not train or elevate quickly enough to target aircraft.

The bright spot was improved cruising speed - increased from 12 to 17 knots thanks to new turbogenerators and motors. The maximum speed approached 30 knots but they were very wet over the bow and difficult to handle above 27.

The Naval Staff considered declaring them obselete and replacing them when the construction moratorium ended in 1937, but the hulls were only 10 years old and still had plenty of life in them. Faced with maintaining 5 marginally effective light cruisers, designs were drawn up to start replacing the existing ships when the Pecos Class reached 15 years of service.

[Trojan]

Very nice! Would using 5"/25s create the same problem with the magazines and ammunition hoists?

[eswube]

Great work. Especially that You've made effort to incorporate deliberate "faults" into your ship's design.