Armada du la Texas

[TexanCowboy]

The Texan Armada (or Marine, depending on which side of the Sabine you come from) had its humble beginnings during the Texan Revolution, when the Texan government, located in New Bordeaux at this point in Texan history, bought 4 schooners in order to protect the sea routes to Galveston, which was the only effective way to speedily resupply Sam Houston's valient forces in the Washington-on-the-Brazos region. Of those four schooners, the TMS Independence (1x9 lb, 6x6 lb) was purchased from the Confederate Navy, where it was formally the Ingram, and the TMS Brutus (1x18 lb, 9x6 lb), the TMS Liberty (6x6 lb), and the TMS Invincible (2x18 lb, 2x9 lb, 4x6 lb) were purchased from private owners from places as varied as Acadia, the CSA, Iberia, even Britian. These ships served with honor and distinction during the Texan Revolution, keeping open the sealanes that allowed for several cannon and the equivelent of a regiment of volunteers to flow to Sam Houston, supplies that were essential for his eventual victory at San Jacinto.

Post war, under the command of Commodore Stephen Decatur, "The Father of the Armada du la Texas", several ships were ordered to expand the Texan navy. The sloop-of-war TMS Austin (16x24 lb, 4x18 lb), and the brigs TMS Wharton, TMS Potomac, and TMS Archer (15x18 lb, 1x9 lb) were ordered from a shipyard in Baltimore in 1821, and the schooners TMS San Jacinto, TMS San Bernard, and TMS San Antonio (4x12 lb, 1x9 lb) were built in New Orleans in 1823. The Texan Navy was also quick to innovate, becoming one of the first navies to operate a steam-propelled schooner in the TMS Zavela (4x12 lb, 1x9 lb) in 1824.

In 1828, the 2nd Texican War began. During this war, the Texan navy had many major successes, although their exploits in the war were overshadowed by (insert foreign navy here)'s role in capturing Vera Cruz from the Mexican Army. The Texan navy made many raids on coastal towns during this war, levelling the combined sum of $150,000 from several towns as a ransom not to level the town. In addition, the Armada du la Texas' maintanance was also paid for by certain Mexican rebel groups, to the tune of $8,000 a month for 6 months. A notable accomplishment during this war was the Battle of Campeche, which was perhaps the only time in history a sail-propelled vessel defeated a steam-propelled vessel. The TMS Austin, accompanied by the TMS Wharton, TMS Archer, and TMS San Antonio, attacked the Mexican vessels Guadalupe and Montezuma in an attempt to break a blockade on the city, which was controlled by Mexican rebels. The TMS Austin fought the Guadalupe to a draw, while the TMS Wharton, TMS Archer, and TMS San Antonio sunk the Montezuma; resulting in the first and only victory of sail over steam.

At the conclusion of the war, the Texan Navy was given a considerable budget to expand from by the Texan Congress, which was added to the over $210,000 captured by the Texan navy from ransoms, prize ships, and more (although only about $130,000 could be used, with prize shares and all, which was offset some by the Mexican rebel groups payments to the Texan Navy). Using some of this money, in 1834 the Armada du la Texas ordered two ships of the line from Baltimore, the TMS Campeche and the TMS Alamo (64x32 lb, 8x24 lb, 2x9 lb). In addition, four sail frigates were ordered from Texan yards, the TMS Baton Rouge and the TMS Galveston (48x24 lb, 6x18 lb, 2x9 lb) in 1837 from New Bordeaux, and the TMS Shreveport and the TMS Dallas (36x24 lb, 4x18 lb, 2x9 lb) in 1838 from Galveston. Although the Battle of Campeche caused many reactionary minds within the Armada du la Texas to wish to stick to sail power, claiming that it was superior for discipline, a cleanly ship, and fighting ability, now Admiral Edwin Moore ordered that two steam frigates be laid down in the new harbor of Corpus Christi in 1843, the TMS Mississippi and the TMS Colorado (2x10'', 8x8'', 2x9 lb).

In 1849, as the world's attention was drawn to the gold rush occuring in California, Texas and Mexico went to war over supposed violations of each others borders in the Nueces-Rio Grande river valley; starting the Third Texican War. This war started on a disasterous note for the Armada du la Texas, with the single most devestation defeat in Texan naval history, the Battle of Tampico. The Texan Navy was escorting a regiment of primarily Indian calvary troopers to invade south of Tampico and spread into the enemy rear, causing chaos as communications and supplies were interrupted. The fleet, in the process of unloading, was met by a superior Mexican force, composing at least 5 ships-of-the-line, as well as 4 frigates and numorous other small ships. The Texan Navy was caught in the classic T-situation; and was utterly defeating; losing 4 of its 6 frigates (the TMS Colorado and TMS Shreveport escaping) and the TMS Alamo, along with a large number of small schooners and brigs, although the TMS Austin survived. The Indian troops were all safety landed, but the merchant transports, trying to escape afterwards, were mauled. The Texan Navy was forced to sit the rest of the war out, besides the occasional raiding expedition and river defense, such as in the Battle of Laredo, where requisitioned Texas Naval craft helped hold the town against an attacking Mexican division.

The Texan navy was dealt a devestating thrust by this war, and was forced to rebuild afterwards, beginning in 1852, when funds finally became available after the final retirement of Sam Houston from the Presidency. Then, the four ships of the Waco class were ordered, each featuring 82 guns (56x32 lb, 16x8'', 8x10'', 2x9 lb)  and being powered by steam, bring the revolution of the steam battleship to America. Following this, in 1861, the Texan navy, in an attempt to gain an edge over the Mexican Navy, laid down the first iron-hulled vessels ever to grace the waters of the Gulf, the New Bordeaux class...

(to be continued)

[Sachmle]

Slight issue: Edwin Ward Moore was only 13 years old in 1823. He didn't even join the USN IRL until 1825 at age 15. He could be in charge of your navy in the 1840-60s, perhaps expanding it greatly al la Tirpitz in Germany, but I don't think he can be the "Father of the Armada du la Texas" in the 1820s.

[TexanCowboy]

Hm.

Let's replace Moore with Stephen Decatur.

[miketr]

Some other names for you if you need them for anything

Isaac Hull
William Bainbridge
David Porter
John Rodgers
Etc.

Michael

[TexanCowboy]

Didn't plan on stealing too much from Charles and Darman, just what was absolutely needed to make the navy function.

Part 2 should be coming out tomarrow, folks, with actual SS designs instead of (4x12 lb, 1x9 lb). :o Till then, the more critques and constructive critism the better.  :)

[TexanCowboy]

The New Bordeaux class was laid down to much fanfare in New Bordeaux proper in 1859, with much good reason. Although not as large as other designs being launched on the Atlantic, such as the Byzantium BB-1859, it still served as a very powerful image of the power of the Texas Navy. Fully constructed out of iron, and longer than anything in the Texan Navy by over 100 feet, this was the defining pinnacle of its era, evident by the conversion into a museum the TMS New Bordeaux underwent in 1907, as a new revolutionary ship by the same name took sail. There were three ships of the class, the TMS New Bordeaux, the TMS Lafayette and the TMS Corpus Christi (see appendix). In a less noticed, but still crucial moment to the Armada du la Texas' eventual success at the Battle of South Padre, the 3rd class frigates TMS Natchitoches, the TMS Nacogdoches, TMS Little Rock, and TMS Sante Fe were laid down at various shipyards across the Gulf in 1860, showing the dedication of the Armada du la Texas to the as of yet unproved in battle ironclad ship.

As another sign of the Armada du la Texas' continued interest in the potential of as of yet unproven craft, resulting from the Battle of Tampico to a more technologly advanced foe, was the purchase of two submarine of the mechanically propelled "Plongeur" (4 kts, 210 tons, 1 spar torpedo, 5 nmi) class from France, and the building of four human-propelled Comanche class (4 knots, 8 tons, 1 spar torpedo) locally in Galveston. Although the Comanche class turned out to be an utter failure, from which three of the four of the class sunk from accidental pressure placed on the diving planes within the first week, causing the fourth to be retired for fear of the same occuring to it, the Plongeur class, quickly renamed to the Cheyenne class, turned out to be remarkable successes, as was seen during the fourth Texican war.

The 4th Texican war caused all hell to break out in the Texan admiralty, as the first iron ship-of-the-lines were about to be laid down by the Texan admiralty. They were promptly cancelled, as the iron was needed vitally by the army, which was already losing ground near Tamaulipas. Although the Republic of Texas lost this war, due mainly in fault to the army, the Armada du la Texas had one of the most remarkable victories in its history, one that was to shape the face of naval designing for the next 40 years. This victory was the Battle of Brazos Island.

The Mexican Armada decided to land troops on Brazos Island, in order to secure that island, from which distracting assaults could be launched against the Rio Grande delta, streching an already overstretched, in retreat Texan Army. Rear Admiral Sebastiano Venier, a recent immigrant from Venice, had other plans, and set off in the TMS New Bordeaux as his flag from New Orleans, with the other ships of the New Bordeaux and Natchitoches classes accompanying, as well as those of the Waco class and the TMS Colorado.

The Mexican Armada was composed of a considerable force on this day of April 21st, 1865, with double the number of 2nd class frigates compared to the Texan squadron, as well as the pride of the Mexican fleet, a new turret ship straight outta Compton. They, in addition, had small boats laying mines, found to be so useful in (insert other conflict here, Asia?) as a way to secure a flank against an enemy. The merchants carrying the troops were heading towards Brazos Island when suspicious activity was reported to the right, that suspicious activity being Admiral Venier coming in 2 "Vs", the first V being composed of his iron ships, and the second V being composed of his wooden ships. The Mexican Admiral in command cancelled the landing, then formed his ships into a line abreast, with the turret ship remaining behind as a reserve. Remarkably, at this stage in the battle, he decided to change his flag to the turret ship, ordering the ships in the line to halt steaming. This proved to be his crucial flaw, for the ships in front of his flag did not recieve the message, and instead continued steaming, opening up a hole in the Mexican line which Admiral Venier would exploit.

Admiral Venier had his ships steam full ahead, straight into the gap created by the breaking of the Mexican line, with the wooden ships peeling off to assault the Mexican merchants watching from the left flank. At one point, a patchy line of mines was observed, but Admiral Venier ordered the fleet to continue, with his famous words "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" Remarkably, no ship was hit by torpedoes mines, which was viewed to be less remarkable in view of the later records of the numbers of mines laid.

The Mexican line was confused by the presence of a full 7 Texan ships smashing straight through the hole in their line firing full broadsides on both sides, and bunched up, with some ships stopping, some turning broadside to assault the Texan ships, some ships not reacting, and even a few in the fan going straight in reverse, at some points causing minor collisions, and in one Mexican frigates case having its stern nearly knocked off. Seeing this confusion, the Mexican admiral decided to take his ship into action, leading with his turret ship, and causing the other ships to turn in towards the Texan fleet. Meanwhile, on the western flank, Captain Riboty, commanding the wooden wing, decided to turn in towards the Mexican flank, to relieve pressure upon the Texan center. Although the manuever caused heavy damage to the wooden ships (although nothing mortal), and decapitated Captain Riboty, it succeeded in sinking that unfortunate Mexican frigate whose stern had been laid open by one of its own number, by having the TMS Waco firing straight through that part and raking the gun decks until the frigate was forced to lower its colors, another unique event in naval history, as it may have been the only time a wooden ship defeated a iron ship in combat.

Meanwhile, in the center of the melee, the TMS Nacogdoches and the TMS Lafyette simultaneously rammed a Mexican frigate from opposite sides, sinking it, while the TMS Corpus Christi and the TMS New Bordeaux were in a close range knife fight with the Mexican turret ship. A confused stage of events occured for the next half hour of so, both navies in a massive mess, with no orginzation, firing blindly at each other, until the TMS Sante Fe got lucky, very lucky. A stray shot fired from a 7'' gun managed to hit a open gun port on a Mexican frigate, not an uncommon event in this battle to both sides. However, this shot knocked out the gun, which, collasping, yanked the gunner, who was about fire, forward, sparking the flint which lit a fire in the gunpowder bucket next to the gun. This fire quickly spread throughout the gun deck and down to the engineering spaces, where, igniting some coal, caused a boiler explosion, which quickly sank the already flaming ship. Simultaniously, another Mexican frigate, two or three miles away, hit a drifting mine, ironically one of the ones used to prevent the Texan navy from attacking the Mexican fleet, and sunk with all hands

At this point, the TMS Natchitoches rammed a Mexican frigate, heavily damaging the frigate as well as itsself. This frigate, the Mexican admiral's flagship before the battle commenced, and still having his colors aboard, quickly lowered its flaggs, an odd event, since it wasn't damaged enough to keep it from forward motion. Nonetheless, the captain of the Natchitoches came aboard, accepting the Mexican captains sword and transferring her crew belowdecks on the Natchitoches, and grabbing the Mexican flag and the admiral's pennent, scurried aboard, allowing the Natchitoches to slowly limp away from battle.

The Mexican admiral, having lost four first line vessels in little more than an hour, ordered his ships to retreat, an order seen and gleefully obeyed by all ships. The Texan squadron, for the most part, did not follow the enemy force, although the New Bordeaux kept up an ineffective firing at the retreating turret ship, which responded. Although many of the ships in the Texan navy were heavily damaged, the Texan fleet had won a miraculous victory, destroying 4 enemy vessels in exchange for no losses of its own while heavily outnumbered. This was expressed not only in the size of the crowd as the battered fleet returned to New Bordeaux with 4 green pennents on each ship to represent 4 sunken Mexican ships, it also was expressed in the promotion of Admiral Venier to Grand Admiral, the first and only grand admiral in Texan navy history.

The Mexican and Texan navies played little more role in the 4th Texican War, besides the usual commerce raiding and protection. This war, however, showed to Texan admirals that the future was in innovation, from ironclad ships, which had allowed that victory, to steam, which allowed for more tactical and even stragetic flexibility, to turret ships, which the sole member used in this war had saved the Mexican fleet from even greater losses than suffered. This war would shape the destinies of both navies in unique ways...

New Bordeaux, Texan 2nd Class Iron Frigate laid down 1861
Armoured Frigate (Broadside ironclad)

Displacement:
   4,414 t light; 4,630 t standard; 5,187 t normal; 5,632 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   340.00 ft / 340.00 ft x 46.90 ft x 22.50 ft (normal load)
   103.63 m / 103.63 m x 14.30 m  x 6.86 m

Armament:
      16 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 48.00lbs / 21.77kg shells, 1861 Model
     Muzzle loading guns in broadside mounts
     on side, all amidships
     16 guns on gundeck (upper belt level) - Limited use in heavy seas
      8 - 7.00" / 178 mm guns in single mounts, 72.00lbs / 32.66kg shells, 1861 Model
     Breech loading guns in broadside mounts
     on side, all amidships
      2 - 7.00" / 178 mm guns in single mounts, 72.00lbs / 32.66kg shells, 1861 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
      2 - 3.50" / 88.9 mm guns in single mounts, 9.00lbs / 4.08kg shells, 1861 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts
     on centreline, all aft
   Weight of broadside 1,506 lbs / 683 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 125

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   4.00" / 102 mm   235.00 ft / 71.63 m   9.00 ft / 2.74 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
   Upper:   3.50" / 89 mm   235.00 ft / 71.63 m   8.25 ft / 2.51 m
     Main Belt covers 106 % of normal length

   - Armour deck: 1.00" / 25 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 1 shaft, 3,816 ihp / 2,847 Kw = 14.00 kts
   Range 2,650nm at 8.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,002 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   305 - 397

Cost:
   £0.484 million / $1.935 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 195 tons, 3.8 %
   Armour: 836 tons, 16.1 %
      - Belts: 646 tons, 12.5 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armour Deck: 190 tons, 3.7 %
      - Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Machinery: 1,183 tons, 22.8 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,070 tons, 39.9 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 773 tons, 14.9 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 130 tons, 2.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     2,153 lbs / 977 Kg = 61.0 x 5.0 " / 127 mm shells or 0.5 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.19
   Metacentric height 2.2 ft / 0.7 m
   Roll period: 13.3 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.37
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.22

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has low quarterdeck
   Block coefficient: 0.506
   Length to Beam Ratio: 7.25 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 18.44 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 32 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 57
   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 %):   16.00 ft / 4.88 m
      - Mid (50 %):      16.00 ft / 4.88 m
      - Quarterdeck (20 %):   10.00 ft / 3.05 m (16.00 ft / 4.88 m before break)
      - Stern:      10.00 ft / 3.05 m
      - Average freeboard:   14.96 ft / 4.56 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 105.5 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 102.7 %
   Waterplane Area: 10,280 Square feet or 955 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 106 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 124 lbs/sq ft or 605 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.94
      - Longitudinal: 1.72
      - 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
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

130 tons accounts for full rig

TMS Natchitoches, Texas 3rd Class Iron Frigate laid down 1862
Armoured Frigate (Broadside ironclad)

Displacement:
   3,668 t light; 3,824 t standard; 4,334 t normal; 4,742 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   303.00 ft / 303.00 ft x 44.70 ft x 22.50 ft (normal load)
   92.35 m / 92.35 m x 13.62 m  x 6.86 m

Armament:
      10 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 48.00lbs / 21.77kg shells, 1862 Model
     Muzzle loading guns in broadside mounts
     on side, all amidships
     10 guns on gundeck (upper belt level) - Limited use in heavy seas
      4 - 7.00" / 178 mm guns in single mounts, 72.00lbs / 32.66kg shells, 1862 Model
     Breech loading guns in broadside mounts
     on side, all amidships
      2 - 7.00" / 178 mm guns in single mounts, 72.00lbs / 32.66kg shells, 1862 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
      2 - 3.50" / 88.9 mm guns in single mounts, 9.00lbs / 4.08kg shells, 1862 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts
     on centreline, all aft
   Weight of broadside 930 lbs / 422 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 125

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   3.50" / 89 mm   215.00 ft / 65.53 m   9.00 ft / 2.74 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
   Upper:   3.00" / 76 mm   215.00 ft / 65.53 m   9.00 ft / 2.74 m
     Main Belt covers 109 % of normal length

   - Armour deck: 1.00" / 25 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 1 shaft, 3,693 ihp / 2,755 Kw = 14.25 kts
   Range 2,900nm at 8.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 917 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   266 - 347

Cost:
   £0.387 million / $1.548 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 123 tons, 2.8 %
   Armour: 693 tons, 16.0 %
      - Belts: 532 tons, 12.3 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armour Deck: 160 tons, 3.7 %
      - Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Machinery: 1,110 tons, 25.6 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,633 tons, 37.7 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 666 tons, 15.4 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 110 tons, 2.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     1,783 lbs / 809 Kg = 49.2 x 5.0 " / 127 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.20
   Metacentric height 2.1 ft / 0.6 m
   Roll period: 13.0 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 72 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.28
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.33

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has low quarterdeck
   Block coefficient: 0.498
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.78 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 17.41 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 36 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 54
   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:      17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   16.00 ft / 4.88 m
      - Mid (50 %):      16.00 ft / 4.88 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   8.00 ft / 2.44 m (16.00 ft / 4.88 m before break)
      - Stern:      8.00 ft / 2.44 m
      - Average freeboard:   14.88 ft / 4.54 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 107.6 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 99.1 %
   Waterplane Area: 8,653 Square feet or 804 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 108 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 113 lbs/sq ft or 552 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.92
      - Longitudinal: 2.08
      - 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
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

110 tons accounts for full rig

(to be continued)

[Blooded]

Howdy,

I think the submarines use way over the top(esp. the 210 tonner and so many of them) and will only cause huge issues (namely the introduction of Subs too fast-Holland was around 1900?).

Also, i think the number and quality of vessels throughout the history seems high, based on the little I recall of what was in CSA possession in 1861. CSA seems a fair comparison based on shown timelines.

Does the Armada of Texas need to be so 'high tech'/forward thinking?

[Blooded]

I do appreciate the detail you are going to though.  :o

[TexanCowboy]

-1 -Ok, for submarines; I don't think it's that advanced. Check out the French submarine Plounger, built in 1863. Although advanced, it worked. There is pretty expansive costs to logistics to support those, and even dedicated support vessels, but I do believe that it's workable. My plan is to keep the same basic level of submarine tech, tho, until around 1895, the only difference being the adding of maybe a real torpedo tube. The same constraints of the 5 nmi range won't be changing, and there will probably be a high percentage of ships sinking.

-2 -Number and quality. Before 1828, those were historical numbers of the fleet, pushed back 20 years or so. After that point, we've got a grand total of 2 ship of the lines and 6 frigates coming out over 20 years, from which only the frigates were homebuilt. I think a better comparison there might be Colonial America during the American Revolution building a ship of the line and 8 frigates in 8 years; there's no real economic embargo on the Texan Republic to prevent the nessasary supplies from coming in, and the knowledge, expertise from the CSA from coming in. As for the frigates, I was trying to clone what the Austrian Navy did from 1862-1866 in the time frame of 1859-1865. I'm willing to push back the laydown dates on the frigates 2 or so years, however.

-3 -Forward thinking. Hm, I see some of what you're coming from here. From my point of view, the main problems are the ironclad ships and the submarines. The steam frigates were laid down later than the OTL American ones were, and probably feature imported machinary. The steam battleships were laid down five years later than the OTL French ones, and the mention of bringing the "steam revolution" to America is just because nobody else is talking yet; I'd assume that Darman's nation, and probably Charles' nation, beat me to it. The steamship Zavela was bought from a bankruptcy firm by some captain who thought "Hm, this could be useful, dude, rad! Let's go get some whiskey." Sorta the same thinking behind the OTL Cottonclads.

The ironclad ships, I'm willing to wait them back two or three years each, will that solve your issues? 1861 and 1862, or 1862 and 1863; I'm sure there would have been some reports from somewhere, perhaps the Crimea, to prove how useful ironclad ships were by that point. On the submarines....I don't really want to remove it; but I'll do it if there's a general consensus from the sim against it.

[Carthaginian]

1.) Have you ever examined the H.L. Hunley in detail, Tex? I can't find any internet sources on the Plounger, but I can tell you that no navy built a fleet of these vessels for a reason. The Hunley killed three crews, and made one successful attack; now while her success was out of any reasonable proportion to the price paid, there was a damnably good reason that the Confederacy didn't litter several blockaded ports with Hunley type submarines attempting to sink Union ships.

From a die-hard, anti-federalist, pro-secession Southron... well, this is a strong statement- SUBMARINES IN THE LATE 1800's DID NOT WORK, THEY NEVER HAD A CHANCE OF WORKING, THEY WERE A CONCEPT RATHER THAN A WEAPON.

2.)  No problem there.

3.) The only question that I would have here is 'how long would this news take to reach Texas, be assimilated by the Texan Navy, reach acceptance with the command structure, and finally be implemented by the designers.

I really have no problem as long as that is answered. :D

[TexanCowboy]

1) The French Plounger class was heavy, for a reason; it ran on a engine powered by compressed fuel. Here's a link. It's got an incredibly short range due to the compressed air engines; and so is at the stagnent peak of technology until electricity becomes an option.

3) Dunno, Britian reacted in less than a year after La Gloire, and notable non-maritime powers such as Austria and Italy reacted within 3 years to that. I'm thinking, if I push it back to 1862 and 1863, not only will the ships be ready by 1865, I think its a reasonable timeframe. My goal here is not to push, at this point, too far ahead of Austrian Naval ambitions; obviously that will change at the conclusion of this war.

[Carthaginian]

Five miles is not enough range to be effective in any manner.
If I were to put a Plounger type submarine in Mobile Bay, launch her near Fort Gains, Dauphin Island on the two-fathom curve, she would only be able to make it as far as Fort Morgan on the on the opposite shore and return to start before she needed to be refueled- IF AND ONLY IF we completely ignore the currents, tides, and wave action. Most likely, she would sink before making it to the opposite shore only a little over 2 miles away.

Stagnating at a level of technology isn't the issue- the fact that such a level of tech would not be effective enough to constitute an effective weapon is the real issue. There would be no point in building more than one or two such vessels for research purposes- periodically activating and deactivating them as needed to test new equipment. There would be no other reason to have them.

[TexanCowboy]

Guys, after consultations with others, I've decided to push down the laydown dates on both frigates by two years each. I'm going to keep the submarines for now, but the actual sinking part will be caused by a Mexican ship running over its own mine, not a submarine.

[Desertfox]

I actually liked the submarine part, but maybe having the submarine sink? Ala Hunley?

[TexanCowboy]

Hmm....