Shipbucket

Well with his limit as to the number of personnel available, I wouldn't expect anything more than a pocket battleship and a CVE.

Who says he cannot extend the limit?

The population size of the country kind of does. Redhorse has even explained that the Navy has guidelines it must follow as to personnel use.

I can go as high as 10,000 (9000 Naval Personnel and 1000 Marines), but the Army is still held at 4000. I checked the budget numbers and should be ok with whatever size fleet comes out of it, but I'm crunching numbers right now for the types of ships and how many of them I'll need to build...and how long that will take.

If ya'll ever want to see the rules I use for my AU, the two biggest ones are:
1. The number of people you put in uniform (all services) at any given time are 1) no more than 1% of your population for a peacetime all-volunteer force, 2) no more than 2% for a peacetime force with conscription and 3) no more than 10% for full mobilization.
2. Your defense budget cannot exceed 20% of your GDP. A country can spend between 10-20% for a while, but domestic programs suffer. If you spend 10% or less, you can sustain that for the long haul.

That's excellent info, redhorse. How did you come by those figures, if I may ask?

A guy named S.L.A. Marshall did a study after WWII, and though a lot of it has been discredited, one of his findings was that you can't put more than 10% of your country's population without hurting your agricultural and industrial base. For every man you put into battle, you need nine more to grow his food, make his arms and ammunition, etc. The US got just a little over 10% by the end of WWII, but that was after women took a lot of the factory jobs, food and gas were rationed, and several other measures to make sure as much went to the war effort as possible. No new cars were built between 1942 and 1945 - all factories were producing war material.

The second rule is just the result of a lot of study. 30% of your GDP is almost 100% of your Taxes and Revenue for the Government. 10% of your GDP is about 30% of your Taxes and Revenue for the Government. Everything costs money, and when you run out or overspend, your other programs suffer.

It helps me keep this AU from becoming like so many others - great ships, but no way that the countries they're attributed to could sustain them. I've checked the GDP for the State of Texas for every year it's been measured. Here's a sample for how much money I can spend between 1906 and 1917:

10% GDP 1906-1917
$364,815,821
$386,457,438
$352,285,722
$424,952,621
$437,194,054
$448,864,532
$475,996,322
$480,319,195
$460,516,966
$456,862,069
$496,050,021
$1,498,640,546

I'm guessing oil will eventually factor in to this Texas' economy?

In 1905, Congress held hearings to ascertain the state of the Navy, and whether or not it could satisfy the strategic missions entrusted to it. The answer from the Secretary of the Navy and the Admiral of the Fleet was a resounding 'no'. The following conclusions were reached:

1. The Texas Navy, in regards to fleet size and capability, is too small and too slow. Naval vessels have increased in size worldwide, which demands larger crews to man them. The Texas Navy has been designing its ships for economy in manpower, therefore overall speed, and volume of fire have suffered to maintain a personnel strength that was adequate in 1861. To compete with adversaries and maintain parity with allies, the faster ships are larger and must have larger crews. To achieve both, the Naval End Strength must be raised.

2. The Navy should take advantage of all possible advances in technology whenever possible. Oil-fired boilers are available, which are more efficient, and the domestically available fuel supply for oil is more than abundant in the Republic. Coal is also available, but not in the quantity or quality that would allow the Navy to make exclusive use of Texas-mined coal.

3. Torpedo defense is wholly lacking. Destroyers must be built in quantity to defend against hostile torpedo boats.

To that end, congress agreed to the following (and since they are politicians, you won't get everything you ask for):

1. An increase in Naval Strength to 6500 Sailors and 700 Marines. The end strength will be re-evaluated in 1911 to determine if it is still viable.

2. Provision of funds for the construction of ships capable of 20 knots speed or faster. However, they will only be built as part of programmed obselescence of the current ships. When a currently serving ship accrues 20 years of service, it may be considered obselete. Its replacement may be constructed to ensure there are no gaps in capability. The new ship should be commissioned the same year the old ship is taken out of service.

3. Priority for ship construction will be to closing the 'Destroyer Gap'.

4. The number of submarines will be increased for harbor defense and patrolling the Gulf of Mexico.

3. Torpedo defense is wholly lacking. Destroyers must be built in quantity to defend against hostile torpedo boats.

I would say - a questionable tactic. In Texas, not so many heavy vehicles that was a significant need to cover their destroyers.

You know, the tactics of betting on "the destroyers as a counter-destroyers" implies a priority in the doctrines of heavy artillery. That is the main emphasis is on the heavy artillery ships, protected by destroyers against enemy torpedo attack. But you have of these ships - only the cruisers "Invincible" and "Indepedens."

P.S. Please forgive such a detailed explanation. I just can not be sure that it will be the correctly translation of my thoughts.

I would say - a questionable tactic. In Texas, not so many heavy vehicles that was a significant need to cover their destroyers.

You know, the tactics of betting on "the destroyers as a counter-destroyers" implies a priority in the doctrines of heavy artillery. That is the main emphasis is on the heavy artillery ships, protected by destroyers against enemy torpedo attack. But you have of these ships - only the cruisers "Invincible" and "Indepedens."

P.S. Please forgive such a detailed explanation. I just can not be sure that the correct translate their thoughts.

I think I understand your point. The destroyers will fight torpedo boats, not other destroyers. The cruisers will fight destroyers and other cruisers.

There are new ships coming. Invincible's 1905 refit will convert her to oil and increase her speed to about 21 knots. She will also be reclassified as a light cruiser because her 8 inch guns will be replaced by the newer 6"/50s, which have a greater range and about the same penetrating power.

A pair of 10" cruisers will be built, both capable of 22 knots, but I have to draw them. That takes me a while because I have to sort out deck plans and internal arrangements. I made deck plans for the Invincible and the Leon Class that I didn't upload, but will try to get them posted with the 10" ships.