Republic of Texas

Post drawings from any Alternate Universe scenario here.

Moderator: Community Manager

Message
Author
User avatar
Redhorse
Posts: 499
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 2:19 am

Re: Republic of Texas

#451 Post by Redhorse »

The reason why the Tar Heel State Battlewagon and Mt Rushmore State Battlewagon were over the limits, was because the Washington Treaty had, effectively been superseded, in 1935 by the London Naval Treaty, which upped, quite significantly the treatly tonnage limits. Hence, they were, in fact, not in violation of any treaty obligations!
True, but the load conditions used to calculate standard displacement were rather interesting. And design studies for both ships started with the 35,000 ton limit. Those limits were superceded/abrogated/escalated during while both ships were still on paper.
Redhorse

Current Projects:
Republic of Texas Navy
FD Scale F-14s
User avatar
Syzmo
Posts: 285
Joined: August 13th, 2011, 4:03 am
Location: Baltimore MD

Re: Republic of Texas

#452 Post by Syzmo »

I don't remember off the top of my head, was there a clause in any of the treaties that regulated building warships for foreign countries.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity, but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." Thomas Edward Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom
User avatar
KHT
Posts: 1396
Joined: November 19th, 2011, 12:49 pm

Re: Republic of Texas

#453 Post by KHT »

From: http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089 ... y_1922.htm

Article XV

No vessel of war constructed within the jurisdiction of any of the Contracting Powers for a non-Contracting Power shall exceed the limitations as to displacement and armament prescribed by the present Treaty for vessels of a similar type which may be constructed by or for any of the Contracting Powers; provided, however, that the displacement for aircraft-carriers constructed for a non-Contracting Power shall in no case exceed 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) standard displacement.

Article XVI

If the construction of any vessel of war for a non-Contracting Power is undertaken within the jurisdiction of any of the Contracting Powers, such Power shall promptly inform the other Contracting Powers of the date of the signing of the contract and the date on which the keel of the ship is laid; and shall also communicate to them the particulars relating to the ship prescribed in Chapter II, Part 3, Section I(b), (4) and (5).

Article XVII

In the event of a Contracting Power being engaged in war, such Power shall not use as a vessel of war any vessel of war which may be under construction within its jurisdiction for any other Power, or which may have been constructed within its jurisdiction for another Power and not delivered.

Article XVIII

Each of the Contracting Powers undertakes not to dispose by gift, sale or any mode of transfer of any vessel of war in such a manner that such vessel may become a vessel of war in the navy of any foreign Power.
User avatar
bezobrazov
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm

Re: Republic of Texas

#454 Post by bezobrazov »

...but, Redhorse, by that time, any treaty limitations were rendered virtually useless and void by the worsening political situation around the Globe...
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen
User avatar
Redhorse
Posts: 499
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 2:19 am

Re: Republic of Texas

#455 Post by Redhorse »

The first two Madisonville Class destroyers emerged from an extensive refit in 1938:

Image

They were re-engined and all three boiler room uptakes trunked into a single funnel to make room for an expansion of the bridge. The foremast was re-located farther aft and a director fitted for newer 5"/25s. The Navy had wanted 5"/38s, but the Madisonvilles were too narrow for the newer gun. They got the older ones instead because they had a smaller working radius.

The dual purpose gun and director made the 3"/50 AA gun obselete, it was replaced with the new 25mm/70 AA gun in the Mk2 twin mount (the two row, twin mount Mk1s would appear on the Invincible Class battleships a few years later).

Madisonville sports the new gray paint scheme prescribed in 1937. The older, lighter shade of gray can still be seen on her boats.
Redhorse

Current Projects:
Republic of Texas Navy
FD Scale F-14s
eswube
Posts: 10696
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am

Re: Republic of Texas

#456 Post by eswube »

Nice looking ship.
Gollevainen
Posts: 4712
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:10 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Republic of Texas

#457 Post by Gollevainen »

I adjoin, these destroyers have been really neat to look at. I also admire the restrain you've showed in designing them in regards not jumping into the super-destroyer wagon that almost all AUs (and some real nations) usually does.
Hood
Posts: 7234
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am

Re: Republic of Texas

#458 Post by Hood »

Excellent work, they look sleek and uncluttered.
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft
adenandy
Posts: 1633
Joined: July 23rd, 2011, 1:46 am

Re: Republic of Texas

#459 Post by adenandy »

A very nice little ship Redhorse. Well done :)
User avatar
Redhorse
Posts: 499
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 2:19 am

Re: Republic of Texas

#460 Post by Redhorse »

1939: as the political situation deteriorates in Europe and Asia, the Texas Air Force continued its close relationship with the Curtiss Aircraft Company, purchasing P-40Bs early in the year. The first delivery equipped 6th Fighter Squadron, the last squadron to fly biplane fighters.

Image

This year the Texas legislature will debate an expansion of all the Armed Services in response to developments in Europe.
Redhorse

Current Projects:
Republic of Texas Navy
FD Scale F-14s
Post Reply