Talk:USS Texas (BB-35)

First Aircraft Launch

This page has problems regarding the first aircraft launch. While there are some debatable details, here is a breakdown of the topics

Location of the launch #2 Turret - no controversy - significant contemporaneous documentation and photography Aircraft type - Sopwith Camel - ditto (which type of Camel I or II is debated by some) Date of Launch - March 1919 (probably the 9th or 10th) Launch - Guantanamo bay - zero controversy Method of Launch - Fly off platform of Royal Navy design - zero controversy (100% sure NOT a a catapult) Significance - first real warplane launched from a real warship under U.S. flag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.36.131 (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

10 March 1919 is the fly-off date. Source is the BB35 Deck Log OneHistoryGuy (talk) 07:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Fact errors

After the 11 November 1918 interment of the German fleet, BB35 remained in Firth of Forth until 1 December departing for Portland, England and arriving on 4 December 1918. Source "Quarterly Cruise Report" and "Log Book"

Interwar period: No 1.1" AA machine gun mounts were installed in 1937 and no source cited. First on BB35 was August Oct 1941. Even the Wiki website refers to guns not being installed until the early part of the war. Six 50cal aa machine guns were installed atop the two masts, Bremerton Navy Yard April - July 1935, for a total of 8. All 50cal removed Aug-Oct 1941 with the install of 4 mounts of 1.1".

Convoy Duty Article source states "Around this time, the secondary battery was reduced to six 5 inch (127 mm) guns and the light AA battery was greatly increased, with two 1.1 inch (28 mm) quad mounts replaced by 6 (later 10) 40 mm quad mounts and 44 20 mm cannon:. No 40mm aboard until March 1943 - source Deck Log. 20mm completely wrong - look at 20mm below.

5inch guns: Many changes in quantity but also configurations 12 - July 1919, 16 - June 1920, 16 - Nov 1926 w 6 moved from 2nd deck to Main Deck, 14 - Oct 1941 w removal of the 2 on the superstructure, 6 - May 1942 with final 8 removed from 2nd deck. Source - Deck Log

40mm AA None installed in 1942. All 10 mounts were installed in Norfolk Navy Yard, March 1943 replacing the 8 mounts of 1.1". the first 4 mounts of 1.1" were installed Aug-Oct 1941, Norfolk Navy Yard. The last 4 mounts during fitting (July-August 1942) for the invasion of North Africa. Source: Deck Log and photos. Any BB35 photo of North Africa, no 40mm are present.

20mm: Only 14 initially installed Mar-May 1942; 38 after July-Aug 1942; 42 June 1943 (with many removed from previous locations; 44 Oct 1944

ARMOR - two distinctly different types were used depending mainly on orientation Vertical - class a (except for between 5" gun casemates and Conning Tower sides (deck down to main deck Horizontal- class B (aka STS - special treatment steel). Including decks below main deck which also has a layer of medium steel. Source: "General Arrangement of Armor - Sheet1" - Newport News Shipyard, 52635, January 10,1911

Class "C" (Nickle Steel) - Mr Friedman's "Battleship" book references Class "C"

OneHistoryGuy (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

3" AA guns: The number increased from 2 to 8 as of August 1921, per the armament page of the BB35 deck log. The article states during the 1925-1927 modernization citing the DAFNS

OneHistoryGuy (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Current status of dry berthing

Hi guys,

Does anyone know what happened to the whole dry berth project? The article says it should've been completed by now, but the Texas is still in the water. The gaming company Wargaming had a donation campaign going on recently to collect money for the necessary repairs of this battleship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.5.253 (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm late but, from what I can tell they didn't get enough funds so it was canceled A 10 fireplane (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

Hi all,

There is a small inaccuracy. There is one more shio being preserved today, which is a capital ship served in both World Wars - Russian protected cruiser Aurora, launched 1900 She served in Russo-Japanese war, WWI and WWII Although during WWII she never went to the sea, she served as an AA battery, and 130-mm guns from it were installed at the outskirts of Leningrad. It was constantly shelled by German artillery and sank in 1941, on a shallow water (raised in 1945)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Aurora https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%80_%C2%AB%D0%90%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%C2%BB

188.194.45.229 (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Calling Aurora a capital ship is a stretch. Maybe someone else can weigh in on this but I'm pretty sure it doesn't fit the description.Pennsy22 (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Aurora was a protected cruiser with 6 inch guns, so definitely not a capital ship. In addition, she wasn't really much of a warship in WWWII - even as the original post points out, she was used merely as a floating AA battery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.186 (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

‘she was commissioned as the flagship of the Texas Navy.’

The article this snippet links to, Texas Navy, talks about the Texas Navy in the past tense and says it merged with the US Navy in 1846. So it isn't all that clear what this sentence is trying to say really. If ‘flagship of the Texas Navy’ is a purely ceremonial title, I feel this should be explained properly and Texas Navy shouldn't be linked since in that case it wouldn't actually be the flagship of the Texas Navy that the Texas Navy article is talking about. If something else is going on then, again, the article should be clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A457:9497:1:344B:3F9E:E574:248E (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Overly-long and detailed.

Don't take this wrong - I am a Texan and very local to this great ship. However ... this article is FAR too long and detailed an frankly, just boring. It could be trimmed by 80% and not lose any value. This is not a book. It is an encyclopedia. There is no need to include every single detail on every single nut and bolt and maneuver. As an ex-sailor and lover of military history, I just want to weigh in and say I find much of this article over-the-top, and just too too wordy. There are plenty of books that cover this ship in great detail. This article just simply over-does it, and I believe, will turn away the casual reader. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Well... I see you typing here... so... wp:Be bold. I don't know if I can support the specific edits you are proposing... since you haven't proposed any.Shajure (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

On review I think perhaps if you start by tightening the lead... that way those who want a good, short summary will have it. They won't read any further. Anyone looking for the detail can click to the section that interests sthem. Shajure (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Editorial axe applied to the lead.Shajure (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Information on Battleship Texas Foundation Plans

I'm not going to change it back, but I am a bit confused about the reversion of my edit that added info about the planned Dry Docking of the Texas in 2022. (context: It was marked bad sourcing and "is this NEWS item relevant? in a GA?") The Battleship Texas Foundation is the foundation that is currently overseeing restoration work on the ship, and my addition addressed directly the previous line which suggested no plans had been made for repairs, as they have now been announced. If it simply that the youtube announcement made by the foundation isn't a good source, then I'll admit I'm not a frequent wikipedia editor and so perhaps I just don't know best practices, but it really seems to me that that announcement is relevant to the article, the ship, and that section, even if it just needs better sourcing. Creativelycliche (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here, Creativelycliche. We often try to shy away from primary sources like that video, but I've re-added the info with a citation to a news article. Cheers, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep that in mind when I'm making my edits. Creativelycliche (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

2022 Dry Dock Period.

Some of the information in the new section about the 2022 drydock is completely wrong. There is simply no way to move the ship to Austin, San Antonio, or DFW. There is no serious plan to move the ship to those cities either. Since the complete lack of any plan means there are no sources to cite supporting that statement, those cities should be deleted from the article.

Also, are the names of the tugboats that moved her really relevant? 47.220.74.94 (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

USS Texas (BB-35)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

Just like the Texas herself, I believe that it's time to bring this neglected 17 year-old GA to dry dock for repairs. There are several issues (article version):

• 1b. The service history section is well-organized, but the museum section has several sub-sections with three short paragraphs mixed in with much longer sub-sections. Both could also use years in parentheticals in the subheadings.
• 2b. Some claims are cited to unreliable sources, such as YouTube videos (e.g., ref 71). There's also a valid {{failed verification}} tag from Nov. 2012 and three valid citation needed tags (oldest Jan. 2023). Additionally, all but one of the nine footnotes (ref group A) lack inline citations.
• 2c. There are at least 18 portions of text that solely cite primary sources (see all 18 references tagged with {{third-party inline}} as of Sept. 2012)
• 3a. The article lacks relevant detail in that the 2022 dry docking section hasn't been updated since April 2024.
• 3b. The article goes into unnecessary detail in that it relies on primary sources.

Note: the above is modified from my request for MILHIST A-Class reappraisal. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military History, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@GAR coordinators: Per this discussion with the MILHIST coordinators, can this be placed on hold pending A-Class reappraisal? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

As I wasn't involved in the Coord discussion, I don't think there's any conflict of interest, so granted. Unless I'm just blind, there's no place to amend this on the template itself, but it should be considered on hold pending the A-Class work. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I've added a notice at the top of the article talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see an issue on waiting to close this until the A class reassessment is closed either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's the A-class reassessment page. If A-Class is retained, this GAR can probably be withdrawn. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

How active is Operation Majestic Titan, which would seem/have seemed to be interested in polishing this article up? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan where does this polishing-job stand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you mean to post this at the A-class page? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

No? That would be the job of the MILHIST coords, if anyone. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, going a little slow but should be done in a month. Matarisvan (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)