| Shipbucket http://67.205.157.234/forums/ |
|
| Republic of Texas http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=110 |
Page 45 of 68 |
| Author: | jabba [ April 28th, 2014, 11:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Republic of Texas |
Looking forward to seeing the development of this. For any AU artists who want to draw their own ships from scratch: Pay attention! |
|
| Author: | Syzmo [ April 28th, 2014, 5:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Republic of Texas |
Can't wait to see her completed! Will she conform to the Washington Naval Treaty? |
|
| Author: | BB1987 [ April 28th, 2014, 5:55 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Republic of Texas | |
Can't wait to see her completed! Will she conform to the Washington Naval Treaty?
According to the WIP itself she has a lenght of 705 feet, a beam of 103 and a draft of 26. with a block coefficent of 0,65 she would have a normal displacement around 35.100T, barely exceeding. She might turn out as a Texas version of the South Dakota class.
|
||
| Author: | Blackbuck [ April 29th, 2014, 9:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Republic of Texas |
Does / Would Texas even need to be a signatory of the WNT? |
|
| Author: | Redhorse [ April 30th, 2014, 1:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Republic of Texas |
We didn't have the gross tonnage to be considered a major naval power, so we didn't participate in the treaty. |
|
| Author: | Thiel [ April 30th, 2014, 4:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Republic of Texas |
You might have trouble getting it built though, since it'll presumably be built in the US who is a signature. |
|
| Author: | Redhorse [ April 30th, 2014, 9:58 am ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Republic of Texas | |
You might have trouble getting it built though, since it'll presumably be built in the US who is a signature.
Yes and no. The US used some "creative accounting" for the tonnage in their treaty battleships. The official displacement often didn't match the actual displacement. The NorCal Class, which were treaty battleships, displaced 36,600 tons at standard displacement and 44,800 tons at full load when commissioned in 1942. The SoDaks were heavier than the NorCals at standard displacement (38,664) and full load (44,519).I can probably get away with a heavy ship, and can probably get away with a 16" gun, especially this late in the decade. The BB-3 Class won't commission until 1941. I did bump up against treaty restrictions with the CA-5 Rio Grande Class. I originally designed them for 10" guns, but no one made a good 10" gun in the late 20's...so I had the US 'impose' the armament size limit on the ship and armed them with 8" guns. As far as I know, I'm the only country building new battleships in the late 30's that isn't a treaty member (except Germany, who had to contend with the Treaty of Versailles.) |
||
| Author: | Thiel [ April 30th, 2014, 12:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Republic of Texas |
It's an interesting conundrum for sure. It all hinges on your relationship with the US. On one hand you're an ally and strong allies tends to be more useful than weak ones. On the other hand you're an emerging regional power and to a certain extend a rival smack in the centre of their sphere of interest. |
|
| Author: | bezobrazov [ April 30th, 2014, 1:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Republic of Texas |
Redhorse, you seem to mix apples with grapes in your explanation. 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! Thus, Thiel, the US would be able to furnish the Lone Star Republic with the desired battlewagons without breeching any clauses, that is, if post-1935. Even a ship laid down pre-1935, could, however, be subject to alterations in treaty stipulated STD calculations. So, from what I've seen so far, the Lone Star Republic is on a fairly sure footing! |
|
| Author: | macseann [ April 30th, 2014, 2:00 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Republic of Texas | |
It's an interesting conundrum for sure. It all hinges on your relationship with the US. On one hand you're an ally and strong allies tends to be more useful than weak ones. On the other hand you're an emerging regional power and to a certain extend a rival smack in the centre of their sphere of interest.
I would imagine in the 1930s that this timeline's Republic of Texas had about the strategic importance as an ally that Saudi Arabia does today for the US. In our timeline, Texas was the largest producer of oil in the US. The Dutch East Indies produced 65 million barrels of oil in 1940. Texas produced 69 million in the first quarter of 1929 alone. The rest of the US had plenty of oil (California, Pennsylvania and Ohio, the Dakotas, to say nothing of Alaska or offshore), but as is today would seek to maintain a strategic alliance with other large producers, so I can't imagine in this timeline it would not maintain its extremely special relationship with one so close by.There probably would have been no question of the US building any ships for Texas as long as they by proxy complied with treaty limitations, especially since Texas could easily pay for them. If anything, it would be a boon to New Deal politics, since it would put thousands of people to work without (the US) Congress having to appropriate the money (the skinflint Texas Legislature probably would have taken some convincing). |
||
| Page 45 of 68 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|