1880 River Gun Boat

[Desertfox]

Stearn wheel paddleboat. Two guns on each side, and two foward, plus four gatlings, and 50 soldiers and five horses.


Juarez, Mexico River Boat laid down 1880

Displacement:
   310 t light; 323 t standard; 334 t normal; 343 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   150.00 ft / 150.00 ft x 30.00 ft x 5.00 ft (normal load)
   45.72 m / 45.72 m x 9.14 m  x 1.52 m

Armament:
      6 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 11.48lbs / 5.20kg shells, 1880 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread
      24 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns (4x6 guns), 0.05lbs / 0.02kg shells, 1880 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts
     on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
      50 - 0.30" / 7.6 mm guns in single mounts, 0.01lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1880 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 71 lbs / 32 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   1.00" / 25 mm   150.00 ft / 45.72 m   5.00 ft / 1.52 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
   Upper:   1.00" / 25 mm     70.00 ft / 21.34 m   5.00 ft / 1.52 m
     Main Belt covers 154 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   1.00" / 25 mm         -               -
   2nd:   1.00" / 25 mm         -               -

   - Conning tower: 1.00" / 25 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 201 ihp / 150 Kw = 10.00 kts
   Range 1,500nm at 5.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 20 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   38 - 50

Cost:
   £0.024 million / $0.096 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 9 tons, 2.6 %
   Armour: 57 tons, 17.1 %
      - Belts: 45 tons, 13.5 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 11 tons, 3.3 %
      - Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Conning Tower: 1 tons, 0.3 %
   Machinery: 42 tons, 12.4 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 148 tons, 44.2 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 24 tons, 7.1 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 55 tons, 16.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     492 lbs / 223 Kg = 42.9 x 3.0 " / 76 mm shells or 0.5 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.36
   Metacentric height 1.4 ft / 0.4 m
   Roll period: 10.6 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.05
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.15

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
     and transom stern
   Block coefficient: 0.520
   Length to Beam Ratio: 5.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 14.85 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 36 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 61
   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:      7.00 ft / 2.13 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   5.00 ft / 1.52 m
      - Mid (50 %):      5.00 ft / 1.52 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   5.00 ft / 1.52 m
      - Stern:      5.00 ft / 1.52 m
      - Average freeboard:   5.16 ft / 1.57 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 79.4 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 79.6 %
   Waterplane Area: 3,177 Square feet or 295 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 126 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 40 lbs/sq ft or 194 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.97
      - Longitudinal: 1.38
      - Overall: 1.01
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

[Carthaginian]

Well, that's some damnably long range for a sternwheeler, but she's also a damn fine little ship, DF.
No offense, I genuinely fail to see where Mexico would need such a ship, but that don't stop it from being a damn good ship.

[Desertfox]

Just happens that my two main borders happen to be rivers... ;) And neither neighbor will be particularly friendly. She needs the range to allow her to operate deep within enemy territory, Albuquerque is say 500 miles from my nearest base and neither shore is friendly...

[Carthaginian]

Callville, Nevada (on Black Canyon) is the head of navigation for the Colorado River, DF, as near as I can find.
You can't just drive a vessel up a river- you have to have water underneath it. When you get to Callville, you have rapids that are too severe to allow for the passage of any kind of real vessel. Today, there is a mighty big wall of concrete there called Boulder Dam.

So, getting into New Mexico using the Colorado is a pipe dream at best, and patrolling the borders of your nation on this particular river is going to be the province of rowboats.

[Desertfox]

You're right. Trying to get into New Mexico via the Colorado is beyond stupid, cause the Colorado doesn't even reach New Mexico. Which is why I will be using the appropriately named Rio Grande instead... ;)

Found a very similar river boat, what she would look like:
http://bcheritage.ca/skeena/inlander.htm

[Carthaginian]

You're right. Trying to get into New Mexico via the Colorado is beyond stupid, cause the Colorado doesn't even reach New Mexico. Which is why I will be using the appropriately named Rio Grande instead... ;)

That is equally silly... the head of navigation for the Rio Grande is at Roma, Texas. That is not far enough into Texas to build boats to patrol it- and nowhere near New Mexico.

DF, riverboats don't work on them overgrown creeks that you guys out there mistakenly and most insultingly call 'rivers.' I have peed on dry ground after a six pack of Dixie and made something that rivaled the San Antonio!

[Tanthalas]

*puts on Researcher hat*

The Rio Grande, is only Navigable as far north as Rio Grande City, with improvements it could be Navigable almost to El Paso, OTL the improvements were never made.  Given Relations between Mexico and Texas, I find it doubtfull that they were made in our timeline.

*takes off Researcher Hat*

Oh and im going by the timeline TC is posting on the relations thing. However I have no objection to you building them either way as they cant reach me  ;)

[Desertfox]

"Minor improvements... navigable up to El Paso" Good thing we are not OTL and that Mexico feels that the river is of strategic importance. So its not the Columbia  River, so oceangoing ships can't use it, doesn't mean special river boats can't use it. 

Heavy usage of water has reduced the river's level in recent years. But I am currently in Albuquerque, quite a bit upstream, and I can tell you that it still has substantial amounts of water. If you want I can get some nice pictures over the weekend...

[snip]

So its not the Columbia  River, so oceangoing ships can't use it

The Columbia is really only navigable up to the Willamette river with minor improvements (mainly to the mouth of the river into the Pacific) until someone goes nuts and dams the damn (heh) thing in about 10 places or so. Mods, when can I start the Bonnaville Power Administration project? :P

[Tanthalas]

"Minor improvements... navigable up to El Paso" Good thing we are not OTL and that Mexico feels that the river is of strategic importance. So its not the Columbia  River, so oceangoing ships can't use it, doesn't mean special river boats can't use it. 

Heavy usage of water has reduced the river's level in recent years. But I am currently in Albuquerque, quite a bit upstream, and I can tell you that it still has substantial amounts of water. If you want I can get some nice pictures over the weekend...

and im sure Texas just let you do it to right, after all your 2 Nations have only been in a near constant state of war since what 1824 and you havnt won one of them? (im going off TCs timeline since there isnt a disputing mexican timeline)

[Carthaginian]

"Minor improvements... navigable up to El Paso" Good thing we are not OTL and that Mexico feels that the river is of strategic importance. So its not the Columbia  River, so oceangoing ships can't use it, doesn't mean special river boats can't use it. 

Where is the sauce, DF?
I haven't found anything about this in my looking. If you're talking about dams, canals, etc... those will, I imagine, have to be paid for to be used. We won't get them for free; believe me on this one, cause I have SEVERAL planned. And you'll have to get Texas's permission to do that kind of modification, DF- it'll involve a lot of dam building, and you have to own BOTH BANKS to pull that one off.

Heavy usage of water has reduced the river's level in recent years. But I am currently in Albuquerque, quite a bit upstream, and I can tell you that it still has substantial amounts of water. If you want I can get some nice pictures over the weekend...

*yawn* Would still look like a pee stream to me, DF. The Tombigbee, where I swam across it ONCE (never be that big a dumbass again, even if I was wearing a life jacket) is right at a quarter-mile wide. It's also about 16' in the channel at a normal summer water level.

The Rio Grande is not a river to someone like me DF. Even the Tigris and Euphrates were really underwhelming to me after hearing about them in all those years in church. To someone that has done over 80 MPH going ACROSS the Mississippi in a boat, you're gonna be hard pressed to convince me that anything in Texas is a 'river.'

[Ithekro]

What strategic ports could Mexico harbor these things and not be shelled by Texan artillery from across the river?  Where would they be viable for use assuming Texas has nothing of like kind in the river but instead uses its army to deny them travel either with cannon or torpedoes (mines).

The Rio Grande is long, but it isn't the Mississippi.

[Korpen]

A quick goggle about navigation on the Rio Grande indicates that it was pretty common for boats to sail from Laredo before the river lost so much water to irrigation.
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/etn01

But what is limiting the river traffic? If it is too little water there is not much to do, but if cataracts or something similar it should be possible to put a ship in water above them.
The most classical example of such a river is the Kongo, but then that river almost makes Mississippi look small...

[Carthaginian]

A quick goggle about navigation on the Rio Grande indicates that it was pretty common for boats to sail from Laredo before the river lost so much water to irrigation.
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/etn01

But what is limiting the river traffic? If it is too little water there is not much to do, but if cataracts or something similar it should be possible to put a ship in water above them.

Uh... Korpen... do you know what a keelboat is?
The largest of vessels might draw a meter of water when loaded; this steamboat draws nearly twice that. Laredo was often unreachable for vessels with this kind of draft, and propelled by poles. A power-driven vessel could reliably reach no further than I indicated.

And falls indeed were not an obstacle which prevented navigation above them- there were several steamboats that operated above the falls at Coffeeville on the Tombigbee their whole service lives, never seeing the downriver side. I'm not only aware of this fact, I can point out the places where several used to dock.
For the Rio Grande, it is not so much a case of falls or rapids, it is a case of not having a reliable channel. Rio Grand City was the ultimate head of navigation, slightly south of Laredo and Roma on the river. Over 200 boats operated between here and Brownsville... but not really anything I can find went on above this point.

[Desertfox]

Another smaller boat. The 3" cannon and the Gatling gun would use the same mount interchangeably.

R-1, Mexico River Boat laid down 1880

Displacement:
   48 t light; 50 t standard; 51 t normal; 52 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   100.00 ft / 100.00 ft x 20.00 ft x 1.50 ft (normal load)
   30.48 m / 30.48 m x 6.10 m  x 0.46 m

Armament:
      1 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 11.48lbs / 5.20kg shells, 1880 Model
     Breech loading gun in deck mount
     on centreline forward
      6 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns (1x6 guns), 0.05lbs / 0.02kg shells, 1880 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mount
     on centreline forward
      15 - 0.30" / 7.6 mm guns in single mounts, 0.01lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1880 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 12 lbs / 5 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   0.50" / 13 mm         -               -

   - Conning tower: 1.00" / 25 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 1 shaft, 26 ihp / 19 Kw = 7.00 kts
   Range 1,000nm at 3.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 2 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   9 - 12

Cost:
   £0.004 million / $0.015 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1 tons, 2.9 %
   Armour: 1 tons, 2.1 %
      - Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 1 tons, 1.5 %
      - Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.6 %
   Machinery: 5 tons, 10.4 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 40 tons, 78.2 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3 tons, 6.4 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     174 lbs / 79 Kg = 15.2 x 3.0 " / 76 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
   Metacentric height 0.5 ft / 0.2 m
   Roll period: 11.6 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.05
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 0.81

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
     and transom stern
   Block coefficient: 0.600
   Length to Beam Ratio: 5.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 11.99 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 23 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 87
   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:      5.00 ft / 1.52 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   4.00 ft / 1.22 m
      - Mid (50 %):      4.00 ft / 1.22 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   4.00 ft / 1.22 m
      - Stern:      4.00 ft / 1.22 m
      - Average freeboard:   4.08 ft / 1.24 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 57.3 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 129.1 %
   Waterplane Area: 1,525 Square feet or 142 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 217 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 24 lbs/sq ft or 116 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.96
      - Longitudinal: 1.62
      - Overall: 1.01
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather