Shipbucket

other possible option for AU CSA:

_________________
Worklist:
- Victorian Navy - LINK
- ROC/Taiwan - 中華民國空軍 / 陸軍航特部 / 海軍航空兵 - LINK
- RHKAAF / HKGFS - 皇家香港輔助空軍 / 政府飛行服務隊
- Gunbucket - LINK

天滅中共全黨死清光!

WOW, Darthpanda!
That is a BEAUTY; what program did you use to do that one? An excellent drawing for sure... and a very fitting aircraft, it works with the idea I have for the C.S.A.'s overall defense strategy.

This is a quick outline of how I see the C.S.N. evolving:

Initially (1862-1880), the Confederacy is mostly concerned with either protecting or interdicting commerce- depending on which way the war is going. They focus on cruising vessels for protecting their own shipping or for destroying the shipping of their enemy; these ships are similar to the commerce raiders like Alabama, Florida and Shenandoah. There are also coastal defense ships, designed generally to deny the Union control of key passages like Chesapeake Bay, the Straits of Florida and the the various passages into and out of the Outer Banks. These ships are not truly 'battleships,' but would require a disproportionate commitment of forces to kill and thus serve as an effective deterrent. 'Torpedoes' are also a strong part of Confederate defenses- though cantankerous, they are cheap and powerful... if they work.

As the Confederacy stabilizes and the industrialization begun during the war takes hold, larger ships are possible and funds with which to build them are available. A fleet of 'almost 1st class' battleships is begun, and a true fleet battle against an enemy becomes a possibility. Torpedoes- long a Confederate 'hobby'- have evolved from the stationary variety into the locomotive type, and their deployment becomes a mainstay of the new Confederate Navy; virtually all ships mount some torpedo launching device. Torpedo boats, and the larger TBD's, are integral parts of the Confederate coast defense effort- and also a primary enabler of the shift from 'coast defense ship' to 'line of battle ship.' Cruisers become a secondary priority as the Confederacy becomes less dependent on imports/exports... new vessels shrink in size and evolve more into fleet scouts.

The 20th century will focus on the development of aircraft and submarines as the primary defenders of Confederate home waters. Dreadnoughts quickly become larger and more expensive... and more taxing on the Confederacy's naval budget (which always takes a backseat to the Army). How the pre-WWI alliances develop would have a large effect on the further development of the Confederate Navy.
A Union closely aligned with Germany would make for a Confederacy centered around development of a battleship fleet with which to defend their shores against Union blockade.
A Union which sides with England, France or any other of the allied nations- or where the Union remains neutral- would probably result in a more cruiser-oriented fleet, for protecting SLOC to Great Britain.

As to the post-WWI period... that one is anyone's guess.
I'd have to know how the war turns out first, and what ships remain to determine that.

I'd say go neutral. There seems to be little point in siding with Germany, they wont be able to support you in a war and you'd be going up against the RN, the biggest navy around at the time.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

The next project is one of the ships of the Gulf Fleet- the last ship of the old style to be built in the Confederate Navy.
Now, the overhangs and citadel are giving me fits... any tips on how to make these look right?
Also, I want her to have barquentine rigging; I think the layout of the masts is correct, but will the sails have enough area to actually provide sufficient power to move the ship? Are the spars on the foremast about the right length? Are the booms and gaffs on the main and mizzen masts about the right length for their height- or should they (or the sail itself) be shorter/thinner?

Additionally- especially to Redhorse, Alvama, and WhyMe (who do a lot of 'Age of Sail' and 'Transitional' ships)- how much weight should I allot for the sails, rigging, etc? I have 32 tons available... and will install a few torpedo carriages before I get finished, so I have to reserve some weight for them as well.

I want this ship:

To resemble this ship:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fraga ... chrane.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ataquechocrane.png
but I want the heavy guns on the upper gun deck rather than the lower one.

Sequoyah, Confederate States of America Ironclad laid down 1874

Displacement:
2,925 t light; 3,077 t standard; 3,375 t normal; 3,614 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
225.00 ft / 225.00 ft x 45.00 ft x 20.00 ft (normal load)
68.58 m / 68.58 m x 13.72 m x 6.10 m

Armament:
6 - 9.00" / 229 mm guns in single mounts, 275.00lbs / 124.74kg shells, 1874 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, all amidships
6 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
7 - 2.25" / 57.2 mm guns in single mounts, 5.00lbs / 2.27kg shells, 1874 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 1,685 lbs / 764 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 89

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 8.00" / 203 mm 140.00 ft / 42.67 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Ends: 4.00" / 102 mm 85.00 ft / 25.91 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Upper: 6.00" / 152 mm 60.00 ft / 18.29 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Main Belt covers 96 % of normal length

- Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 4.00" / 102 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 2,100 ihp / 1,567 Kw = 12.75 kts
Range 2,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 537 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
220 - 287

Cost:
£0.345 million / $1.378 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 212 tons, 6.3 %
Armour: 1,065 tons, 31.6 %
- Belts: 776 tons, 23.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armour Deck: 270 tons, 8.0 %
- Conning Tower: 19 tons, 0.6 %
Machinery: 461 tons, 13.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,156 tons, 34.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 450 tons, 13.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 32 tons, 0.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
3,186 lbs / 1,445 Kg = 11.5 x 9.0 " / 229 mm shells or 0.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.30
Metacentric height 2.4 ft / 0.7 m
Roll period: 12.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.40
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.583
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 15.00 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 45 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 35
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 17.00 ft / 5.18 m
- Mid (50 %): 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 16.50 ft / 5.03 m
- Stern: 17.00 ft / 5.18 m
- Average freeboard: 16.63 ft / 5.07 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 92.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 103.3 %
Waterplane Area: 7,291 Square feet or 677 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 90 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 89 lbs/sq ft or 434 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.82
- Longitudinal: 5.60
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather


Oh, are there any pictures/descriptions of what a vintage 1870's 'Torpedo Carriage' (as opposed to a 'torpedo tube') might look like?

I would think a Union allied with Germany would be more logical, actually. Since much of the actual RN was cooped up maintaining the North Sea blockade against Germany, and assuming a Union at war with Britain would try to invade Canada (something we've tried--and failed--to do every time we went to war with Britain), the RN would be further drawn off trying to maintain supply convoys to Canada.

The one thing I would be concerned about with this AU is how much resources the CSA is diverting to its Navy, particularly with such a large (and hostile) neighbor up north; I'd think it might make more sense for the CSA to have a small fleet more concerned with keeping the USN from getting too frisky on its shores, and perhaps some river monitors as well.

In any case, though, good work, Carthaginian!

Well, whether or not the US would ally with one side or the other would have a lot more to do with just whether or not Britain is stretched thin... else the US would be in possession of all of Canada and a lot of small islands in the Caribbean right now in OTL. Remember, a lot of factors were involved on all sides when it came to keeping the US away from Germany's side in OTL- not the least of which involved a lot of poor judgement calls by Germany herself. Personally, I think Germany a lot more likely to engage in Unrestricted Submarine Warfare (the biggest factor) if the Confederacy was an immediate and staunch British ally- and thus Germany is a lot more likely to make the Union angry.

That's just one factor... many more exist *goes to look for Dreadnought and Castles of Steel*. I won't go along with Turtledove and say 'it's just more interesting if we keep having the North and South refight the War Between the States at every opportunity.' The US and GB- to say nothing about GB and France- became allies eventually; there is nothing to force a constant and everlasting state of war between the USA and CSA.

Also, the Confederacy might have an angry neighbor right up north... but the have an economy that is almost exclusively constructed around overseas trade! While the Big Blue Boogyman might be rather intimidating, the Confederacy has to keep it's trade lanes open or the population will suffer greatly. OTL, the war was won by blockade- to make any further conflicts with the Union successful, the Confederacy must be able to secure aid from overseas (at least till 1900 or so).

THANK YOU! (You've hit the head of the nail for my Turtledove irritation.) "Yay, we just fought a bloody civil war. What fun, let's do it again in ten years!" *Grinds teeth.*

And I'd think the US-Union would be back to supporting the UK by time of the Great War, but might remain with a friendly neutrality rather than a UK co-belligerent.

Now, if the UK+France can win the Great War without the support of the full USA... that may be a different matter. I speak not only in terms of ships and infantry divisions (the US contributed slowly to the latter), but in terms of building merchant ships and trade goods at a rate to keep Britain fed and her economy going.

If Denmark is anything to go by, the merchant construction would keep pace by it self.
As dangerous as it was, there were serious money to be made sailing supplies to western Europe.
Yard capacity almost quadrupled during the war. Without a centrally controlled construction program, this is likely going to happen in a lot of other countries as well.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

It's worth bringing up that in Harry Turtledove's alternative histories of WW1 and WW2 with an independant south, the Union allied with the Germans and the Confederacy, Britain, Canada, France and Japan were against them.

_________________
Probably posting from and iPhone and naval terms befuddle it. If I say a ships' hill, you know what I meant.

Exactly a problem with those books.

Anyhow, here is my argumentative point, Woodrow Wilson was a Virginian, and therefor would not have been elected President of the US, more likely President of the CSA, thereby possibly keeping the CSA out of the Great War. Whereas the President of the United States would most likely have been Theodore Roosevelt a strong proponent for US involvement in the Great War. With Wilson wanting Neutrality and Roosevelt wanting War, its easy to see that the CSA would have remained strong through Neutrality.

The other argument that I have is State based, Oregon and California were UNION states and would not have ceded away. Washington, Idaho, and Montana would have joined the Union a lot sooner if the CSA had won, mostly to keep the Pacific from the South and keep the Pacific Northwest from Canada. I seriously doubt that the Union would have tried to invade the northern neighbor mostly because it would be Another war. And by the time of the Spanish-American War, the South may or may not have gone after Cuba & Puerto Rico, and the North after the Philippines and Guam. Just my $0.02.

Use it or don't, It's your AU.

PS: And I think the Mormons would have joined the CSA personally lol.

_________________
"It is better to type nothing and be assumed an ass, than to type something and remove all doubt." - Me