Republic of Texas

[heuhen]

17.2 knots but armored
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidsvold_c ... fence_ship
16.9 knots but armored
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tordenskjo ... fence_ship

[Dilandu]

Well, it can be used for multiple duties - the classic purpose of a light cruiser

No

1) He can not effectively break the opponent's trade - he is too slow to run away from more powerful ships.

2) He can not effectively defend their trade - he is too slow to catch up with the enemy cruiser

3) He can not play the role of a scout - he's too slow for the intelligence

4) He can not effectively fight the enemy cruisers or bombard a shore - his artillery too weak

5) In fact, all he can do - it effectively repel the attacks of destroyers.

17.2 knots but armored
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidsvold_c ... fence_ship
16.9 knots but armored
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tordenskjo ... fence_ship

Its a coastal defense battleships!

[Redhorse]

It's a twelve ship Navy. There's lots of limitations. Perhaps you should read the whole thread before you start criticising it. I've tried to be nice, but now I'm irritated. Let me school you, son, since I studied Naval History before you were born and studied ship design as a university major for three years:

The New Orleans Class I referenced had its designation changed several times: from Protected Cruiser to Gunboat and finally to Light Cruiser. Light Cruiser might not be the correct designation for the time period, because the terms Protected Cruiser, Armored Cruiser, Auxiliary Cruiser, etc etc were in use and were often designated according to a class - 1st Class, 2nd Class, 3rd Class etc etc.

The term cruiser has been in use since at least the 1860s. You are applying a narrow definition of a type that wasn't even well defined for many years after the turn of the century.

So let's pick your argument apart:

1) He can not effectively break the opponent's trade - he is too slow to run away from more powerful ships.

2) He can not effectively defend their trade - he is too slow to catch up with the enemy cruiser

3) He can not play the role of a scout - he's too slow for the intelligence

4) He can not effectively fight the enemy cruisers or bombard a shore - his artillery too weak

5) In fact, all he can do - it effectively repel the attacks of destroyers.

1. For the time period and alternate historical context, Texas is allied with most countries with powerful navies, and therefore does not have a requirement for a large navy. Her potential adversaries do not maintain large fleets. The displacements and ordnance selected are specific to the threats she faces. It seems you are judging this fleet as though it were a first-rate power with hundreds of ships at its disposal. That is your first mistake.

2. Again, look at the naval threats for the time: Mexico, Brazil, possibly Argentina, and if you stretch it, Spain (but the US has already taken care of that by 1902). How many of those navies possess capital ships with speeds in excess of 18-20 knots?

3. Every vessel is a scout, regardless of type. Again, you are using a narrow definition that doesn't fully apply until around World War I.

4. I'm an Artillery Officer in the US Army. I know more about ordance and guns, even naval ones, than you do. Shore bombardment is ineffective at this time because coast defenses are using disappearing carriages in behind earth-fronted emplacements. Naval ordnance with its flat trajectories designed to strike other vessels are largely useless against that type of defense. You need guns capable of high-angle fire to bombard those defenses.

5. Not an issue.

Well, now I feel better. Back to work.

[Dilandu]

Ok, ok, no need to panic! Understand, it's not too easy to read long threads in a foreign language. Something I did not notice that something does not understand ...

[Redhorse]

Ok. I'll cool my heels. Didn't realize we had a language barrier.

[Dilandu]

Not a real language barrier... But it just not always easy for me - to understand what was exactly meant.

[emperor_andreas]

Thank you for your service to our country, Redhorse

-Matt

[Redhorse]

Now that I'm done being an old grump, here's what the fleet looked like between 1896 and 1905:



You can see the first of the twentieth century additions: most notably the radio aerials bewteen the masts.

There's a new era coming...battleships, battlecruisers, heavy cruisers, oil fired boilers, turbo-electric drive and steam turbines.

[Novice]

How about some destroyers to protect your cruisers and bigger ships from enemy destroyers and cruisers?
If you are going for one or two battleship you'll need at least two flotillas of destroyers (British flotillas at that time was something around 20 destroyers - remember destroyers were about 700 tons then).

[Redhorse]

The Navy will really start to grow after Brazil and Argentina get their first battleships. Congress will increase the size to 4500 men, and it will grow considerably again for WWI.

You're looking the same direction I am. With the discovery of oil in Texas about this time, there will be much more international shipping to protect, and it will be time to grow out of commerce raiding as a strategy. The navy will need more teeth.