Matrix Games Forums

Come and see us during the Spieltagen in Essen!New Screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

BB-35, USS Texas

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> BB-35, USS Texas Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
BB-35, USS Texas - 4/6/2013 9:23:39 PM   
nashvillen


Posts: 2804
Joined: 7/3/2006
From: Christiana, TN
Status: offline
Visiting Houston, TX this week. Had to go see a battleship while I was there. Initial picture, more to follow latter when I am on a computer and not my phone!



_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/6/2013 10:23:05 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4658
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
Hey, they bent her keel!

I like that fisheye shot.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to nashvillen)
Post #: 2
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/6/2013 11:20:01 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3734
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: online
Awesome. I really hope our Lege or a few of our newly minted oil billionaires put the money up to properly preserve her. Big hull integrity issues.

_____________________________


(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 3
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/8/2013 1:23:40 AM   
nashvillen


Posts: 2804
Joined: 7/3/2006
From: Christiana, TN
Status: offline
As promised, more pictures:

Family on the Texas:



Son and Daughter on the 3in gun. They both agreed it was a lot of work to just move it around. They practiced training it on passing shipping in the channel...





Main Deck Galley, it could be opened to the main deck. I am sure that would help when cooking a meal for the large amount of crew that served on this ship.



View from the bow:



View after from the 2nd deck towards the number three turret where the catapult would have been for the float plane.



View from the charthouse level looking forward:



View from the previous location looking aft:



Pilot house pictures:





Views from the gun captain's position in the number one turret:







Images from the 5 inch gun area on the main deck:









And, the last, image of the stern from the gangway:



My wife and Sister in Law took more and as I sort through them, I will post them.

_____________________________


(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 4
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/8/2013 2:04:35 AM   
tocaff


Posts: 4658
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
It's a shame that these grand ole gals are getting to such a sorry state of repair because of money problems. A country's identity is based on it's history.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to nashvillen)
Post #: 5
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/8/2013 2:10:20 AM   
nashvillen


Posts: 2804
Joined: 7/3/2006
From: Christiana, TN
Status: offline
Chatted with some of the repair crew. They say if they don't get a million dollars to put her into a dry dock she may not be around to see 100 years of age.

_____________________________


(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 6
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/8/2013 4:29:13 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7185
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: online
When you look at the photos of the secondary gun deck, you really get a feel for how obsolete she was by 1944. Looks more like a Spanish American War ship when seen from that deck. Still, she could throw some shells and that served a purpose.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to nashvillen)
Post #: 7
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/8/2013 7:23:44 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11206
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Well said CR. Looks like she is ready to fire an old-fashioned broadside!

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 8
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/8/2013 9:54:32 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12271
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

When you look at the photos of the secondary gun deck, you really get a feel for how obsolete she was by 1944. Looks more like a Spanish American War ship when seen from that deck. Still, she could throw some shells and that served a purpose.



exactly my thought when looking at the pictures, she just doesn't look like something to be used in WWII. Really wonder if it made any sense, there was enough of everything else around that could have been used. There were those old, slow BB but she was ancient already. Pretty much like the Schleswig Holstein, opening fire on the Westerplatte 33 years after comissioning.

Wasn't Texas comissioned around roughly the same timeframe? And then you see her having quite an intense duty in WWII, being part of Torch, Overlord, etc.

_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 9
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/8/2013 1:50:26 PM   
msieving1


Posts: 463
Joined: 3/23/2007
From: Missouri
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

When you look at the photos of the secondary gun deck, you really get a feel for how obsolete she was by 1944. Looks more like a Spanish American War ship when seen from that deck. Still, she could throw some shells and that served a purpose.



exactly my thought when looking at the pictures, she just doesn't look like something to be used in WWII. Really wonder if it made any sense, there was enough of everything else around that could have been used. There were those old, slow BB but she was ancient already. Pretty much like the Schleswig Holstein, opening fire on the Westerplatte 33 years after comissioning.

Wasn't Texas comissioned around roughly the same timeframe? And then you see her having quite an intense duty in WWII, being part of Torch, Overlord, etc.


Texas was commissioned March 12, 1914, so she was less than a year older than HMS Queen Elizabeth and about two years older than USS Nevada. She didn't receive as extensive an update as those ships, but she was very useful for shore bombardment. She was roughly equal in combat power to the British R class battleships, though those ships were a little newer.

There's no comparison to Schleswig Holstein, which was a pre-dreadnought battleship about half the size of Texas. Although Schleswig Holstein was only six years older than Texas, she was obsolete before she was commissioned.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 10
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/8/2013 3:11:51 PM   
CV 2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline
I dont understand why they keep them in the water. They should dig a hole and put them to rest on land. It would save a lot in rust repair. The U505 for example (granted much smaller than a BB) cost $250,000 for repairs in 1953 and then went on display - outdoors - in Chicago. Over 50 years later, in 2004, they made repairs for the weathering damage and moved it inside.

Seems to me thats where they should put their money. Building a building to house it in and get it out of the salt water and weather.

(in reply to msieving1)
Post #: 11
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/8/2013 3:45:50 PM   
bjmorgan


Posts: 2932
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

I dont understand why they keep them in the water. They should dig a hole and put them to rest on land. It would save a lot in rust repair. The U505 for example (granted much smaller than a BB) cost $250,000 for repairs in 1953 and then went on display - outdoors - in Chicago. Over 50 years later, in 2004, they made repairs for the weathering damage and moved it inside.

Seems to me thats where they should put their money. Building a building to house it in and get it out of the salt water and weather.

Well, the Astrodome is not being used.

_____________________________

Occasionally, and randomly, problems and solutions collide. The probability of these collisions is inversely related to the number of committees working on the solutions. -- Me.

(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 12
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/8/2013 5:57:25 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7185
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

I dont understand why they keep them in the water. They should dig a hole and put them to rest on land. It would save a lot in rust repair. The U505 for example (granted much smaller than a BB) cost $250,000 for repairs in 1953 and then went on display - outdoors - in Chicago. Over 50 years later, in 2004, they made repairs for the weathering damage and moved it inside.

Seems to me thats where they should put their money. Building a building to house it in and get it out of the salt water and weather.


Well, it is the same issue with the Olympia in Philly. But it take a lot of money to do it and there is not any money..


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 13
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/8/2013 6:04:47 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7185
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

When you look at the photos of the secondary gun deck, you really get a feel for how obsolete she was by 1944. Looks more like a Spanish American War ship when seen from that deck. Still, she could throw some shells and that served a purpose.



exactly my thought when looking at the pictures, she just doesn't look like something to be used in WWII. Really wonder if it made any sense, there was enough of everything else around that could have been used. There were those old, slow BB but she was ancient already. Pretty much like the Schleswig Holstein, opening fire on the Westerplatte 33 years after comissioning.

Wasn't Texas comissioned around roughly the same timeframe? And then you see her having quite an intense duty in WWII, being part of Torch, Overlord, etc.



Oh, I suppose it was just typical military planning. What seemed like a good idea in 1942 was probably rendered obsolete in 44. I suspect that the military thought that there was a great need for these old BBs for future fire support so they raised the dead from Pearl Harbor and keep some of these old girls in service for that purpose. However, in 1942 when they were planning for 1944, nobody really had an idea of how refined and effective close air support would become in 2 years. And once the process of re-floating and rehabbing old BBs started, it was hard to reverse. Probably did not need them but the US had the economic reserves to do it so why not? They certainly did not hurt the war effort.

I am just speculating here but it make sense.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 14
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/9/2013 12:27:21 AM   
mikkey


Posts: 773
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Slovakia
Status: offline
nice, thanks nashvillen

_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 15
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/9/2013 4:38:42 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 5005
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

When you look at the photos of the secondary gun deck, you really get a feel for how obsolete she was by 1944. Looks more like a Spanish American War ship when seen from that deck. Still, she could throw some shells and that served a purpose.



exactly my thought when looking at the pictures, she just doesn't look like something to be used in WWII. Really wonder if it made any sense, there was enough of everything else around that could have been used. There were those old, slow BB but she was ancient already. Pretty much like the Schleswig Holstein, opening fire on the Westerplatte 33 years after comissioning.

Wasn't Texas comissioned around roughly the same timeframe? And then you see her having quite an intense duty in WWII, being part of Torch, Overlord, etc.



Oh, I suppose it was just typical military planning. What seemed like a good idea in 1942 was probably rendered obsolete in 44. I suspect that the military thought that there was a great need for these old BBs for future fire support so they raised the dead from Pearl Harbor and keep some of these old girls in service for that purpose. However, in 1942 when they were planning for 1944, nobody really had an idea of how refined and effective close air support would become in 2 years. And once the process of re-floating and rehabbing old BBs started, it was hard to reverse. Probably did not need them but the US had the economic reserves to do it so why not? They certainly did not hurt the war effort.

I am just speculating here but it make sense.

I'm not sure it got old so fast. BB support could be awesome, and the very last thing the allies needed to train their CV bomber crews to do was attacking ground targets. I wouldn't give them up for anything. Plus, I'd rather have one of those old battlewagons come under attack from the air than any type of carrier.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 16
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/9/2013 5:05:45 AM   
MineSweeper


Posts: 652
Joined: 9/19/2006
From: Nags Head, NC
Status: offline
I had to go to Norfolk, Va today to get my wifes car serviced and drove over the HRBT (Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel) and saw the USS Enterprise being dismantled...cranes erected taking the bridge apart......Could not get a pic since I could not pull over.....So sad.

_____________________________





(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 17
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/9/2013 5:17:59 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7185
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

When you look at the photos of the secondary gun deck, you really get a feel for how obsolete she was by 1944. Looks more like a Spanish American War ship when seen from that deck. Still, she could throw some shells and that served a purpose.



exactly my thought when looking at the pictures, she just doesn't look like something to be used in WWII. Really wonder if it made any sense, there was enough of everything else around that could have been used. There were those old, slow BB but she was ancient already. Pretty much like the Schleswig Holstein, opening fire on the Westerplatte 33 years after comissioning.

Wasn't Texas comissioned around roughly the same timeframe? And then you see her having quite an intense duty in WWII, being part of Torch, Overlord, etc.



Oh, I suppose it was just typical military planning. What seemed like a good idea in 1942 was probably rendered obsolete in 44. I suspect that the military thought that there was a great need for these old BBs for future fire support so they raised the dead from Pearl Harbor and keep some of these old girls in service for that purpose. However, in 1942 when they were planning for 1944, nobody really had an idea of how refined and effective close air support would become in 2 years. And once the process of re-floating and rehabbing old BBs started, it was hard to reverse. Probably did not need them but the US had the economic reserves to do it so why not? They certainly did not hurt the war effort.

I am just speculating here but it make sense.

I'm not sure it got old so fast. BB support could be awesome, and the very last thing the allies needed to train their CV bomber crews to do was attacking ground targets. I wouldn't give them up for anything. Plus, I'd rather have one of those old battlewagons come under attack from the air than any type of carrier.


Ground support is basically what they were doing in the last six months of the war. And were getting very good at it. Especially the boys on the CVEs.


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 18
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/9/2013 5:24:07 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 5005
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton



Ground support is basically what they were doing in the last six months of the war. And were getting very good at it. Especially the boys on the CVEs.



I certainly wouldn't dispute that, but early on those 14+" guns were invaluable, especially for suppressing airfields.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 19
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/9/2013 7:38:55 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12271
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: msieving1


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

When you look at the photos of the secondary gun deck, you really get a feel for how obsolete she was by 1944. Looks more like a Spanish American War ship when seen from that deck. Still, she could throw some shells and that served a purpose.



exactly my thought when looking at the pictures, she just doesn't look like something to be used in WWII. Really wonder if it made any sense, there was enough of everything else around that could have been used. There were those old, slow BB but she was ancient already. Pretty much like the Schleswig Holstein, opening fire on the Westerplatte 33 years after comissioning.

Wasn't Texas comissioned around roughly the same timeframe? And then you see her having quite an intense duty in WWII, being part of Torch, Overlord, etc.


Texas was commissioned March 12, 1914, so she was less than a year older than HMS Queen Elizabeth and about two years older than USS Nevada. She didn't receive as extensive an update as those ships, but she was very useful for shore bombardment. She was roughly equal in combat power to the British R class battleships, though those ships were a little newer.

There's no comparison to Schleswig Holstein, which was a pre-dreadnought battleship about half the size of Texas. Although Schleswig Holstein was only six years older than Texas, she was obsolete before she was commissioned.




hmm, guess I'll have to look her up a little closer. Thanks for the info, didn't know she was of the age of QE and Nevada. She just looks so damn old (not now, on pics of the 40's already), wonder if it was her design?

All those bolts, the look, to me, she's looking more like a monitor of the late 19th century, not something that would fight in the same war as an Iowa class BB. Being equal to the British R class ships is the biggest surprise to me, thought she would have only been some aged floating gun tubes not being able to deal with a modern heavy cruiser.

_____________________________


(in reply to msieving1)
Post #: 20
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/9/2013 7:39:28 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12271
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
edit: double post

< Message edited by castor troy -- 4/9/2013 7:40:12 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to msieving1)
Post #: 21
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/9/2013 6:37:07 PM   
reg113


Posts: 275
Joined: 3/21/2002
From: MS, USA
Status: offline
Damn!

_____________________________

"Life's a b***h, then you die."

(in reply to MineSweeper)
Post #: 22
RE: BB-35, USS Texas - 4/10/2013 11:52:44 PM   
msieving1


Posts: 463
Joined: 3/23/2007
From: Missouri
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: msieving1


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

When you look at the photos of the secondary gun deck, you really get a feel for how obsolete she was by 1944. Looks more like a Spanish American War ship when seen from that deck. Still, she could throw some shells and that served a purpose.



exactly my thought when looking at the pictures, she just doesn't look like something to be used in WWII. Really wonder if it made any sense, there was enough of everything else around that could have been used. There were those old, slow BB but she was ancient already. Pretty much like the Schleswig Holstein, opening fire on the Westerplatte 33 years after comissioning.

Wasn't Texas comissioned around roughly the same timeframe? And then you see her having quite an intense duty in WWII, being part of Torch, Overlord, etc.


Texas was commissioned March 12, 1914, so she was less than a year older than HMS Queen Elizabeth and about two years older than USS Nevada. She didn't receive as extensive an update as those ships, but she was very useful for shore bombardment. She was roughly equal in combat power to the British R class battleships, though those ships were a little newer.

There's no comparison to Schleswig Holstein, which was a pre-dreadnought battleship about half the size of Texas. Although Schleswig Holstein was only six years older than Texas, she was obsolete before she was commissioned.




hmm, guess I'll have to look her up a little closer. Thanks for the info, didn't know she was of the age of QE and Nevada. She just looks so damn old (not now, on pics of the 40's already), wonder if it was her design?

All those bolts, the look, to me, she's looking more like a monitor of the late 19th century, not something that would fight in the same war as an Iowa class BB. Being equal to the British R class ships is the biggest surprise to me, thought she would have only been some aged floating gun tubes not being able to deal with a modern heavy cruiser.


Neither Texas nor a R class battleship would do well against a WW2 era battleship. I saw a quote from one British admiral, I forget who, who said that it would be murder to order a R class to engage a modern battleship. Kirishima, which was about the same age as Texas but far more extensively upgraded, didn't fare well against USS Washington. Washington finished Kirishima off in about 5 minutes of shooting.


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 23
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> BB-35, USS Texas Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.102