Page 46 of 68

Re: Republic of Texas

Posted: April 30th, 2014, 3:45 pm
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and Mt Rushmore State Battlewagon were over the limits, was because the Washington Treaty had, effectively been superseded, in 1935 by the London Naval Treaty, which upped, quite significantly the treatly tonnage limits.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 Those limits were superceded/abrogated/escalated during while both ships were still on paper.

Re: Republic of Texas

Posted: April 30th, 2014, 4:05 pm
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.

Re: Republic of Texas

Posted: April 30th, 2014, 4:22 pm
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.

Re: Republic of Texas

Posted: April 30th, 2014, 4:30 pm
by bezobrazov
...but, Redhorse, by that time, any treaty limitations were rendered virtually useless and void by the worsening political situation around the Globe...

Re: Republic of Texas

Posted: May 3rd, 2014, 1:35 am
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.

Re: Republic of Texas

Posted: May 3rd, 2014, 7:51 am
by eswube
Nice looking ship.

Re: Republic of Texas

Posted: May 3rd, 2014, 8:11 am
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.

Re: Republic of Texas

Posted: May 3rd, 2014, 11:02 am
by Hood
Excellent work, they look sleek and uncluttered.

Re: Republic of Texas

Posted: May 3rd, 2014, 11:24 am
by adenandy
A very nice little ship Redhorse. Well done :)

Re: Republic of Texas

Posted: May 3rd, 2014, 12:15 pm
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.