Shipbucket

Texas shipbuilding expanded rapidly for the war, with no less than three new yards opened in 1942. However, the slipways in Texas were not large enough to accomodate fleet carriers, or the larger capital ships. One yard, Todd Houston on Buffalo Bayou, was able to build light cruiser hulls of up to 14,000 tons displacement.

The five existing light cruisers in the Texas Navy were nearly obselete when the war started. The two oldest, Nueces and Paluxy, were light cruisers in name only since they were armed no better than a US Destroyer. The other three, Pecos, Pedernales, and Red River, had no room to expand for newer advances in radar and fire control. The Navy desperately needed new light cruisers.

In 1941, as an emergency measure, new light cruiser designs were drawn up. They would have to be constructed in Texas, as the Navy expected the US would be unable to construct ships for them if the US were to mobilize. The parameters were drawn up:

1941 Cruiser Plan 2, Republic of Texas Light Cruiser laid down 1942

Displacement:
11,181 t light; 11,615 t standard; 13,079 t normal; 14,250 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(590.89 ft / 578.00 ft) x 60.00 ft x (24.00 / 25.63 ft)
(180.10 m / 176.17 m) x 18.29 m x (7.32 / 7.81 m)

Armament:
12 - 6.00" / 152 mm 47.0 cal guns - 112.35lbs / 50.96kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1938 Model
4 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 5.00" / 127 mm 38.0 cal guns - 59.33lbs / 26.91kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1934 Model
6 x 2-gun mounts on side ends, majority forward
6 raised mounts
32 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm 70.0 cal guns - 0.53lbs / 0.24kg shells, 150 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1942 Model
8 x 2 row quad mounts on side ends, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 2,077 lbs / 942 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 6.00" / 152 mm 375.70 ft / 114.51 m 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 6.00" / 152 mm 375.70 ft / 114.51 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined 15.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
3.00" / 76 mm 375.70 ft / 114.51 m 38.00 ft / 11.58 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 48.00 ft / 14.63 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 6.00" / 152 mm 3.00" / 76 mm 6.00" / 152 mm
2nd: 2.50" / 64 mm - 2.50" / 64 mm
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Box over machinery & magazines:
2.00" / 51 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 6.00" / 152 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 69,443 shp / 51,804 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,635 tons

Complement:
610 - 794

Cost:
£5.334 million / $21.334 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 580 tons, 4.4 %
- Guns: 580 tons, 4.4 %
Armour: 4,576 tons, 35.0 %
- Belts: 2,242 tons, 17.1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,585 tons, 12.1 %
- Armament: 627 tons, 4.8 %
- Armour Deck: 50 tons, 0.4 %
- Conning Tower: 72 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 1,814 tons, 13.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,210 tons, 32.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,899 tons, 14.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
24,839 lbs / 11,267 Kg = 230.0 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 4.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.01
Metacentric height 2.4 ft / 0.7 m
Roll period: 16.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 72 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.81
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.45

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a straight bulbous bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.550 / 0.561
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.63 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27.36 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 27.64 ft / 8.42 m, 22.83 ft / 6.96 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 22.83 ft / 6.96 m, 22.83 ft / 6.96 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 22.83 ft / 6.96 m, 22.83 ft / 6.96 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 22.83 ft / 6.96 m, 22.83 ft / 6.96 m
- Average freeboard: 23.21 ft / 7.08 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 74.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 179.6 %
Waterplane Area: 25,197 Square feet or 2,341 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 130 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 139 lbs/sq ft or 679 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.20
- Longitudinal: 2.73
- Overall: 1.30
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

The first ship was laid down in 1942, and commissioned on 9 JAN 1943 after a frantic construction/shakedown period:





One ship per year would be completed during the war, and a total of four are built: San Antonio, San Bernard, San Gabriel, and San Jacinto.

They benefitted from some of the newest developments in ship design and protection - true transom sterns, inclined main armor belt, and a full complement of surface, air search, and fire control radar.

I tried some new techniques on this drawing, the two main ones being panel lines on the hull and my first attempt at an overhead view. Following images will show San Antonio as outfitted for war.

Now that's a beautiful ship! Yet another one worthy of flying the Lone Star flag! Excellent job!

I like it (CL) but could you not, drop the beam 5' mounts 1 deck, this would compensate to allow you to raise the bow/stern 5'mount to super fire over the 6'guns. That or you could just drop the stern directors at least 1 deck and save loads of top weight ?


JSB

Hi Redhorse,

The cruiser looks great (to be fair, I don't think I've seen you do a "bad" drawing, they're all top-notch), but (as ever) I have a query - is the Republic of Texas using special rounds for the 5"/38s? Standard shell weight was 25kg, I thought, but you'd probably get better performance at a distance with the heavier shells...

Regards,
Adam

drop the beam 5' mounts 1 deck, this would compensate to allow you to raise the bow/stern 5'mount to super fire over the 6'guns. That or you could just drop the stern directors at least 1 deck and save loads of top weight ?

I actually tried both suggestions when I started drawing her, but found problems with that arrangement as I got further along. When I put the beam 5"/38 mounts on the main deck I didn't have enough clearance between the superstructure and the mount's working radius. Spent casings would pile up and potentially jam the ejector ports.

On the fore and aft mounts, I tried superfiring, but it would have added a deck in the superstructure that I didn't think I could afford. I had to compromise, figuring those guns would likely be firing at higher elevations to engage aircraft, so superfiring would have been ideal, but not absolutely necessary.

The drawings often turn out quite different from what I imagine, precisely from the things you described. Not a single drawing I've posted has ever been 100% of what I originally set out to make. Just for another example, I wanted the internal hangar to carry up to four of the Curtiss Seamews, but the hull is too narrow to take three abreast. So I had to settle for two - one in the hangar and one in the elevator space.

is the Republic of Texas using special rounds for the 5"/38s? Standard shell weight was 25kg, I thought, but you'd probably get better performance at a distance with the heavier shells...

We're using standard US shell weights during the war. Range can also be increased by using a larger propellant charge or a longer barrel (allows for more of the "hot, expanding gas" from propellant combustion to increase the muzzle velocity, and therefore range).

Or were you speaking in terms of explosive charge effectiveness?

Thoughts on the report and the design, mainly(as the drawing is superb).
Firstly, you've got a hull strength of 1.30, which means there's a lot of wasted tonnage. For a completed design, a Springsharp calculation should give you a hull strength value of 1.00(Never more, and only less if you're making a destroyer or smaller craft). Hull strength is lessened by decreasing the displacement, or by piling even more things onto the ship.
If you're portraying real guns, you should alter the shell weight manually, since Spingsharp's estimates tends to miss by a margin. You should also tweek the ammunition amount(Right now, it's 150 shells for every single gun on the ship - including even the lightest AA guns).
Also, just for the record(people tend to miss this); if you want the armour belt to be inclined outwards, you have to give it a negative rating. I don't know if inclining it inwards was your intention, but I thought I should mention it.
Personally, I would go for a thinner belt, a thicker deck, and higher speed. With 0.30 margin in hull strength, you can easily afford these, and still be able to drop the displacement somewhat.

Hi Redhorse,

Apologies for not being specific - I was talking about this bit:

Redhorse wrote: 12 - 5.00" / 127 mm 38.0 cal guns - 59.33lbs / 26.91kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1934 Model
6 x 2-gun mounts on side ends, majority forward
6 raised mounts

As KHT has alluded to, I think that may be a SS general calculation (I always have to correct the figure it gives for the KM40) rather than the "book" figure for shell weights on the 5"/38, but wasn't sure if you'd instead decided to equip RoT ships with a heavier shell, which would bleed less speed off to friction compared to the 25kg shell, all other things being equal (and, as you've stated, make a bigger bang at the other end).

EDIT: One more thing, given the hull strength, is that you could carry heavier engines (or ballast?), which would make the ship more stable, and then lift the fore-and-aft 5"/38 into superfiring mounts. Not sure if the trouble is more than the utility (for the AU stuff I'm doing everything except the little stuff is turbo-electric, so if I want ballast I can just add whacking great battery packs, but that doesn't exactly apply here!)

Regards,
Adam

Firstly, you've got a hull strength of 1.30, which means there's a lot of wasted tonnage. For a completed design, a Springsharp calculation should give you a hull strength value of 1.00(Never more, and only less if you're making a destroyer or smaller craft). Hull strength is lessened by decreasing the displacement, or by piling even more things onto the ship.

It's room for growth. Weight will be added throughout the war with additional weapon fits.

"It's room for growth. Weight will be added throughout the war with additional weapon fits."

I agree that some margin maybe useful and in fact authentic. 1.00 means you can't put on a second coat of paint, but 1.30 means you can support an additional 4,000 tons! That is too much, trim down the hull and you'll get more speed and everything else will still be fine. Save you some bucks too.

Nice work, You have really improved!

January 1943 - Patrol squadrons assigned to the Atlantic Theater of Operations begin receiving PBY-5As. The first airframes go to the 116th Patrol Squadron.

The PBY-5A increased the versatility of the Catalina fleet, allowing squadrons to operate from land or sea bases.