Republic of Texas

[Trojan]

LOVE IT! more excellent work from this AU
So the Texans bought the guns but designed their own turrets correct?

[emperor_andreas]

Love them!

-Matt

[bezobrazov]

Redhorse, you make me proud of being a Texan! But...(yes, always an annoying 'but'!) for increased seaworthiness (and the Carib can be quite tough, as you know!) I'd actually copy the USN practice of a slender clipper bow! Never anything wrong with borrowing something that actually works! Or...in case such a proposition is odious (and why would it be, considering you're employing cage masts!?) make the stem more curved, such as can be found in contemporary British designs, such as the HMS Canada or the 'Refit' and 'Repair'! It also, in my view would greatly enhance the overall well-balanced appearance of your solid design!
Btw, I like the name choices! Thank God you didn't pick the dimwit John Bell Hood or something!

[eswube]

It's one of the most interesting AU threads here. Awesome work!

[Redhorse]

Does she have two torpedo tubes or four total? The drawing seems to show one fore and one aft, for four total, while the Springsharp only shows two total.

It's four. I copied a slightly older springsharp report. Sometimes I find places to make revisions when the springsharp data doesn't work visually or there's room to expand armament.

Just out of curiosity, why did Texas choose to go with British armament instead of just buying them from their US neighbors?

So the Texans bought the guns but designed their own turrets correct?

At the time the Austins were designed (1912) the US was providing the 12"/50 for Argentina and the British a 12"/45 to Brazil. Being the most likely rivals in South America, I wanted a bigger gun. The US 14"/45 probably would not have been provided since it was arming the first line American battleships, but the Brits were building the Reshadieh for Turkey and were going to arm her with 13.5" guns. The Brits could have provided the 13.5" gun without giving the Texans their biggest gun, unlike the Americans who were still designing their 16" guns. It made for a good story to have the Brits deny the 13.5" gun while they were fighting WWI (since they 'appropriated' Reshadieh) and to have the US provide the 14"/45 in exchange for permission to move Punitive Expedition troops for Mexico through Texas (instead of going around). It allowed me to create two ships with subtle differences without having to design two separate ships. Austin's turrets are those for the Erin, and Houston's are taken from the USS Texas and shortened for Erin's barbette diameter.

I'd actually copy the USN practice of a slender clipper bow! Never anything wrong with borrowing something that actually works! Or...in case such a proposition is odious (and why would it be, considering you're employing cage masts!?) make the stem more curved, such as can be found in contemporary British designs, such as the HMS Canada or the 'Refit' and 'Repair'! It also, in my view would greatly enhance the overall well-balanced appearance of your solid design!

When I looked at the ships designed around 1911-1912 (mostly US ships) they all had straight stems. And since I've got experience with drawing cage masts they were easy. But these are the last ships I'll draw for Texas with straight stems. Clipper bows are next for my capital ships and tripod masts or towers.

[bezobrazov]

Excellent! I'll be looking forward to those then. Just a question, out of curiosity: you have only two shafts, which almost would have been an indication that the ships were fitted with VTE-engines; not turbines. Would this not be a more probable arrangement? Also a whopping 24 knots on such a displacement and only two shafts? I believe that your stated horsepower outputis a little optimistic, yes, it's doable, but I doubt that on your small dimensions it's feasible. Around 23,000 IHP is more realistic and more in line with international practice. Also, for your chosen gun types, you may want to increase your beam to at least 88-90 ft.
Please do understand me right. I really love your ships; thus I find it worthwhile to spend some extra time and effort to give, what I hope is a constructive critique. If I didn't state the earlier, it's only because I have studied your drawings more in detail hence. As a Texan it makes my heart warm to see our Lone Star flag fluttering over a mighty behemoth like your dreadnoughts!

[travestytrav25]

Yeah, I was curious about the propulsion myself. From what I can see in the little bit of research I did, the average speed of most dreadnoughts built during that period was 21-22 knots. The British and Germans were big into steam turbines, but most other navies were still experimenting with them at that time. The US was building both VTE and turbine powered battleships at the time, and a lot of other navies were still using VTE engines. I also so far haven't found any battleships build around that time with two-shaft turbine engines. The British turbine dreadnoughts all had 4 shafts while the Germans favored 3 shafts. And again, they all had a speed of around 21 or 22 knots. The closest in design to yours was the Brazilian Minas Geraes, which I'm sure you've looked into since you mentioned it previously. It had 2 shafts as well and was about the same displacement as yours, but had VTE propulsion and could do 21 knots.

Anyway, just something to think about. Either way, I still love your ships. Keep up the good work!

[bezobrazov]

The small -very small Espana-class also had two shafts, but was armed with only eight 12" guns and good for a speed of 18 knots, though they could at times, for short periods steam at 20. They had turbines though. I presume that the RofT is as inexperienced with turbine machinery as is the US. Also I can see in its case the added benefit of range and fuel economy; both conveniently delivered by reciprocating engines. If I were Redhorse, I'd change it to VTE, but I'm only plain ol' daft Bezo...

[Redhorse]

The speed is a 'springsharp-ism'. When I start a design, maximum speed matches the natural speed for the length, and then any room left in the composite strength gets consumed by increasing it until I get close to 1.00. I've been using VTEs for most of the ships, but wanted to experiment with them to match similar developments in other navies at the same time. Realistically, she would probably not make 24 knots only because propellors are extremely inefficient at high speeds, even though turbines are most efficient at high RPM. Later refits will probably include installation of reduction gear.

These will also be the last 'two-shaft' capital ships for the Texas Navy, too. The Naval Staff was concerned about changing too many design practices while the navy was expanding these last ten years.

The fact that they're oil burners will also keep them out of exercising with the Grand Fleet in 1917-1918. The British oil supply had been choked by the U-boats to the point that the US only sent their coal burners to the North Sea.

I think the imperfections - the turbines, the necessary increase in gun size, the narrower beam - all make for interesting for discussion and keep them real. NorCal had issues adapting her turrets from quad 14" to triple 16", and there are several US dreadnoughts with differences in the propulsion systems (turbo-electric vs. turbine-reduction gear).

[Redhorse]

March, 1917. It's time for Texas to go to war:



More to follow. Expect the updates to cover three-month periods with coverage on the activities of the Army, Navy, and soon-to-be create Air Volunteer Group.