Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Lord_Slayer

USS Texas

111 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

255
[REVY]
Members
954 posts
7,519 battles

So this popped up on my Facebook today:

 

 

Texas.jpg

 

I knew she was taking water...... but that picture.......someone get that ship into a drydock stat!!!
920x920.jpg
 

Edited by Lord_Slayer
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[VVV]
Beta Testers
800 posts
5,159 battles

I stopped following the news. It's a damn shame what is happening to this historic ship. Last I heard divers was trying to patch the holes but without a dry dock she will sink soon due to her hull being paper thin. Thing is it'll be 25 million or so I read to dry dock her. And our government only spends that kind of money on parties not keeping history. 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
255
[REVY]
Members
954 posts
7,519 battles
1 minute ago, Naviss said:

Thing is it'll be 25 million or so I read to dry dock her. And our government only spends that kind of money on parties not keeping history. 

it was 25 million in 2007.

 

It's up to 50 million now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
117
[JR]
[JR]
Modder, In AlfaTesters
390 posts
4,124 battles

She's been sinking for like the last 20 years.  Nothing new here.

It's a shame the government doesn't do more, however.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
820
[ARMDA]
Members
8,993 posts
3,581 battles

Drydock idea is very viable, but very expensive. I'm not gonna go into politics, but Texas has more money than any other state (in fact, if we could secede, we would totally survive). 
It's horrible this is happening to her, and the only thing that can be done is to do what they did back then, which is to take her out and fix the hull, while they fix up the berth. Harvey didn't help.

 

What WG needs to do, is all profits of Texas go to USS Texas. Straight to USS Texas, nothing.

Edited by Unabletony
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,864 posts
19,068 battles
10 minutes ago, Inigo_M0ntoya said:

She's been sinking for like the last 20 years.  Nothing new here.

It's a shame the government doesn't do more, however.

Our government would rather give Billions to foreign countries like Iran then preserving our national heritage back at home and it's been like that foe quite a few years or haven't you folks been noticing that  ? ? ?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
117
[JR]
[JR]
Modder, In AlfaTesters
390 posts
4,124 battles
Just now, Eric_Von_Hess said:

Our government would rather give Billions to foreign countries like Iran then preserving our national heritage back at home and it's been like that foe quite a few years or haven't you folks been noticing that  ? ? ?

No people or atleast most people have always known that. Funding for all kinds of museums, national heritage sites, and stuff like that always gets the shortest end of the stick when it comes to federal budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15
[HYDRA]
Members
136 posts
1,167 battles
6 minutes ago, Eric_Von_Hess said:

Our government would rather give Billions to foreign countries like Iran then preserving our national heritage back at home and it's been like that foe quite a few years or haven't you folks been noticing that  ? ? ?

I don't think it's national heritage as much as state's ego issues, why do you think that USS Barb and USS enterprise were both scrapped while battlewagons that had almost no effect on the war are preserved? Because the battleships had state names attached to them while all the enterprise had was enough citations to make her list. 

edit; My point is that how is the Texas heritage since it really did almost nothing in WWII besides expend fuel and require escorts.

Edited by Herodotus4
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
107
[NZS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
370 posts
9,057 battles

Last Dreadnought on planet Earth, what a shame procrastination and penny-pinching could lead to it being irretrievable.  High expense now?  Yes.  More expensive to refurbish her after she's seen water in all decks tho I'd wager... :cap_old:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,752
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
6,103 posts
1,313 battles
6 minutes ago, Herodotus4 said:

I don't think it's national heritage as much as state's ego issues, why do you think that USS Barb and USS enterprise were both scrapped while battlewagons that had almost no effect on the war are preserved? Because the battleships had state names attached to them while all the enterprise had was enough citations to make her list. 

edit; My point is that how is the Texas heritage since it really did almost nothing in WWII besides expend fuel and require escorts.

You're joking right? The Texas did WAY more than just "expend fuel and require escorts" mate.

 

She shelled german positions during D-Day, as well as Iwo Jima and Okinawa. She served in BOTH world wars as well, and she's also the very last of the dreadnought battleships. She rescued passengers from the damaged Ryndam, and she was the first of MANY things among US battleships. Sure, there are ships that did more than her during WWII, but she also didn't just sit around all day and do nothing like you make it sound.:Smile_sceptic:

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15
[HYDRA]
Members
136 posts
1,167 battles
27 minutes ago, Kitsunelegend said:

You're joking right? The Texas did WAY more than just "expend fuel and require escorts" mate.

 

She shelled german positions during D-Day, as well as Iwo Jima and Okinawa. She served in BOTH world wars as well, and she's also the very last of the dreadnought battleships. She rescued passengers from the damaged Ryndam, and she was the first of MANY things among US battleships. Sure, there are ships that did more than her during WWII, but she also didn't just sit around all day and do nothing like you make it sound.:Smile_sceptic:

I looked up her service history, she shot at an enemy warship only once in her career and spent a lot of WWII as a convoy escort (IE a torpedo sponge at best). Shore bombardment wise she got to shoot at cliffs ineffectually since this was world war two and shore bombardments by heavy ships rarely achieved much. of the Random I could find no mention of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
1,656 posts
4,928 battles

Just as a note, just because battleships didn't often engage in the kind of fighting they were originally designed for, doesn't mean they didn't contribute to the war effort.  For example, during the Salerno landings in Sicily, gunfire from US battleships blunted then broke the back of the armored units of the German 10th Army that were threatening to push the assault troops back into the sea. 

Guess she's owned by the Texas State Parks.  She's certainly something that is worth saving.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
1,656 posts
4,928 battles
On 10/9/2017 at 7:12 PM, Herodotus4 said:

I looked up her service history, she shot at an enemy warship only once in her career and spent a lot of WWII as a convoy escort (IE a torpedo sponge at best). Shore bombardment wise she got to shoot at cliffs ineffectually since this was world war two and shore bombardments by heavy ships rarely achieved much. of the Random I could find no mention of it.

 

Well lets see, she was part of the bombardment force for Operation Torch and again for D-Day covering the forces going ashore at Omaha beach.  During the desperate fighting there, Texas approached to within 3,000 yards of the beach, nearly grounding herself using her secondary and main battery guns at little to no elevation to provide direct close fire support to the troops pinned down in that area.  During this fight she engaged well placed machine gun and sniper nests which were in enfilade just off the beach and which the troops on the beach could not engage.   It might be the only time in history a battleship was close enough to a land target to take particular machine guns under direct fire. 

For the better part of a week, Texas remained off the Normandy coast, breaking up German troop concentrations and engaging hard targets for the units ashore which had not yet landed their own batteries of heavy artillery to support them.  At the end of that time the troops had moved further inland beyond the reach of the shells of her big guns. 

Texas was not even close to being the only battleship to engage in effective shore bombardment duties, and by all accounts were very effective at laying down heavy firepower on demand in any number of locations and situations.  The last battleships to do so were the Iowa class battleships during Operation Desert Storm though they also played important roles in other conflicts like Vietnam and Korea.  So I probably wouldn't consider them to be ineffective at the task at all. 

Edited by BB3_Oregon_Steel
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15
[HYDRA]
Members
136 posts
1,167 battles
33 minutes ago, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

 

Well lets see, she was part of the bombardment force for Operation Torch and again for D-Day covering the forces going ashore at Omaha beach.  During the desperate fighting therw, Texas approached to within 3,000 yards of the beach, nearly grounding herself using her secondary and main battery guns at little to no elevation to provide direct close fire support to the troops pinned down in that area.  During this fight she engaged well placed machine gun and sniper nests which were in enfilade just off the beach and which the troops on the beach could not engage.   It might be the only time in history a battleship was close enough to a land target to take particular machine guns under direct fire. 

For the better part of a week, Texas remained off the Normandy coast, breaking up German troop concentrations and engaging hard targets for the units ashore which had not yet landed their own batteries of heavy artillery to support them.  At the end of that time the troops had moved further inland beyond the reach of the shells of her big guns. 

Texas was not even close to being the only battleship to engage in effective shore bombardment duties, and by all accounts were very effective at laying down heavy firepower on demand in any number of locations and situations.  The last battleships to do so were the Iowa class battleships during Operation Desert Storm though they also played important roles in other conflicts like Vietnam and Korea.  So I probably wouldn't consider them to be ineffective at the task at all. 

So she was half as efficient as a mix of dive bombers and destroyers because the Das go farther inland and the DDs can get much closer to a beach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10
[SF-B]
Beta Testers
74 posts
1,643 battles
1 minute ago, Herodotus4 said:

So she was half as efficient as a mix of dive bombers and destroyers because the Das go farther inland and the DDs can get much closer to a beach.

However DDs lack the punch to actually knock out heavy fortifications and DBs are vulnerable to AA fire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
519 posts
3,356 battles
2 hours ago, Eric_Von_Hess said:

Our government would rather give Billions to foreign countries like Iran then preserving our national heritage back at home and it's been like that foe quite a few years or haven't you folks been noticing that  ? ? ?

ahh let's make this political with "alternate" facts .........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,177
[SIM]
Members
2,539 posts
4,182 battles

She's doomed. It's tragic, but that's what it is. They'll let her sink then erect a memorial on top of her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
511
[WOLFB]
Members
2,689 posts
5,042 battles

They need to do what japan did with there B.B. and take her out of the water. Unfortunately I think that is the only way to save her.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
21 posts
5,640 battles
10 minutes ago, Lonewolfpj said:

They need to do what japan did with there B.B. and take her out of the water. Unfortunately I think that is the only way to save her.

Sorry to say, but I believe that's no longer an option. the hull is so frail that She can not sit on solid ground and I believe the same can be said of putting her on blocks for dry docking. A real shame...Really.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
152
Members
544 posts
2,962 battles
18 minutes ago, khorender_1 said:

ahh let's make this political with "alternate" facts .........

Heres a fact for you. The VP went to a football game over the weekend with the intent to immediately leave in protest of players if they kneel during the national anthem. The total cost of the added security and transport for that dumb stunt is well over a million dollars of our money.

Politicians literally don't care about taxpayer money if its being spent on them.

Edited by ksix
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
519 posts
3,356 battles
8 minutes ago, ksix said:

Heres a fact for you. The VP went to a football game over the weekend with the intent to immediately leave in protest of players if they kneel during the national anthem. The total cost of the added security and transport for that dumb stunt is well over a million dollars of our money.

Politicians literally don't care about taxpayer money if its being spent on them.

so what does that have to do with what I said ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
505
[HEROS]
Supertester
1,453 posts
5,522 battles
16 minutes ago, JosephSantora said:

Sorry to say, but I believe that's no longer an option. the hull is so frail that She can not sit on solid ground and I believe the same can be said of putting her on blocks for dry docking. A real shame...Really.

 

Half true.  The ship as it sits right now is undergoing repairs specifically to drydock, then dry berth the ship.  They expect the repairs to be complete sometime in 2018, if the ship is still above water by then.  The problem they are running into is that the ingress of water into the hull is making repairs difficult and the hull plating is thin enough that repairs cannot easily be made.  Some of the holes in the hull are actually below the mud line and cannot be repaired without drydocking the ship.

 

Needless to say, the State of Texas has done a really rather poor job of maintaining the ship.  I understand that it is difficult to maintain these old fighting ships in perfect condition, but no one is expecting perfection, just a dang good effort to keep the ship afloat and in good enough condition to tour.

 

I wish I had the time off and money to go visit her this year, but the money and time just isn't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,071 posts
4,505 battles

That is an old picture from 2012. A permanent dry dock for the ship isn't something that should be done, it's something that is being done. A viable design for a permanent dry dock as well as a new museum area for the San Jacinto battleground has already been finalized. The ships requires substantial repairs before it can be dry docked or it will collapse under its own weight. Taylor Marine Construction has recently been rewarded the bid to make these changes, along with AECOM Technical Services, Inc (the company that did the 2012 assessment and recommended the permanent dry berth). Energy Engineering Associates was also recently awarded a contract to overhaul many of the ship's electrical systems. The majority of this work will probably last until the end of next year provided there's no set backs. Dock construction won't b likely to start before 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×