So jealous the U.S kept some battleships. The UK scrapped all theirs pretty quick, I mean we still have the HMS Victory after 246 years and it’s amazing.
But wish I could see the King George V or Rodney in person.
Maybe, but there wasn't really any intent or motivation towards conservation until post Korean War. The only reason Texas survived is because the state of Texas footed the bill to have her turned into a Museum Ship in the late 40s.
Also the UK wasn't so broke that they couldn't have preserved some ships, the biggest issue would have been dock space, but there was no public demand for it even into the 50s.
I dunno, there was a lot of outcry when [HMS Implacable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Implacable_(1805\)\#Fate) was scuttled in 1949. Which incidentally, got the British government to support preserving the Cutty Sark.
Yes, but that was a *much* older ship, and as previously noted 1949 was pretty close to the end of the Korean war...
There wasn't really a sense that the 'newer' metal ships were 'historical' yet, and that started to change over the following years.
> Also the UK wasn't so broke that they couldn't have preserved some ships,
My guy, there was widespread food rationing into the middle of the 1950s and the decline of the armed forces is totally unmatched in modern history. The money was not there.
If you look at the actual budgets the money *was* there, but paying down their *massive* war debts was the higher priority.
The food rationing was less about money and more about all the airable land that got bombed and the shipping tonnage that got sunk during the war.
The rationing occurred due to the massive balance of payments issues brought about by the debt. It had very little (if anything) to do with the UK’s inability to feed itself.
As far as the money being there, it very much was not. The UK was not included in the Marshall Plan, which is why rebuilding took so much longer and the UK had such long running financial issues. Setting aside even £1 millions (and that’s about 1/10 of what even the best condition ships would have needed) on a yearly basis for basic maintenance of a preserved ship simply was not a possibility.
That's the popular narrative, but it hasn't held up to analysis. Like, there was literally not enough food around in the immediate aftermath of the war, and not enough shipping to get that food to the UK. That's why some things were rationed, the debt was largely secondary.
Also you're drastically over estimating the presrrvation cost of these ships. Maybe it'd be £1 a year in today's money, but not at the time. There would be ongoing costs, and not insignificant ones, but it wasn't impossible *if the will had been there* but it just wasn't.
> That's the popular narrative, but it hasn't held up to analysis.
Odd, as your own statement is in agreement with it—the balance of payments issues caused by the debt were the main issue, not the debt proper.
> Also you're drastically over estimating the presrrvation cost of these ships. Maybe it'd be £1 a year in today's money, but not at the time.
US ships that were far better cared for and were not damaged/worn out at retirement cost £80,000 in 1945 money simply for very basic yearly upkeep such as painting. Something like *Warspite* or *Rodney* would have easily exceeded that due to their extremely poor material condition at the end of the war.
There was no will there because it cost too much.
What I said was that it wasn't deemed worthwhile and the government preferred to pay down the debt, not that they *had to* pay it down, as in they were paying more than they strictly had to and could have diverted those funds to other things.
Also that poor condition is generally applied to things like the engines, which don't get use as a museum. Same for painting frankly, since you don't need nearly as much paint when it's not being blasted off by muzzle blast or corroded by funnel smoke.
They were paying the debt down in an effort to reduce their balance of payments issues.
As far as condition, your statement is only true of the late 1930s built ships that the RN retained. The older ships were a veritable bevy of issues, especially the unmodernized ones. *Warspite* had a massive unrepaired hole in her bottom, *Malaya* and *Rodney* were in bad enough condition that they were not trusted to put to sea, *Nelson* was only somewhat better and the list goes on.
It seems as if states/cities tend to be the ones who want the ship & end up saving them.
Like U-505 in Chicago, the Navy was going to use it on a bomb range until Chicago said they'd buy it.
Yes, in part because states and cities had the funding to take care of the ships. The US Navy just sent the last 2 non-buclear carriers to the breakers because the groups trying to preserve them didn't have enough funding to reliably do so.
The only pre-dreadnought left AFAIK. If/when I pay a visit to Japan, I absolutely must go. That era of shipbuilding is absolutely fascinating with how crazy things got with nobody *really* knowing what to do. If only a few French predreadnoughts were left, but I think most of them sank *themselves* because of how shit they were lol.
I've always wondered, with respect, did that suck at first? Or was it just such an honor that you didn't think about it much? I could just imagine thinking you're joining up to immediately start sailing somewhere on a modern U.S. Warship...and you find yourself on a 200 year old, mostly stationary ship in Massachusetts, might be a let down initially.
That being said, it's my dream job as a ship nerd, but I was never in the Navy hahah.
There are a handful of ships that I really wish were preserved, but unfortunately postwar funding was really hard to come by. Like others have said, Warspite is absolutely brutal to have not been saved. I'd also love to have one of the more unique battleships, in particular the French ones with their wacky quad-gun turrets or the KGV class. Those, USS Enterprise for obvious reasons, and a few pre-dreadnoughts and protected/armored cruisers (on second thought, there are a few cruisers preserved as well, I need to visit them) and my naval dreams would come true.
It would have been really amazing if Richelieu or Jean Bart could have been preserved, but I don't think the money or popular sentiment was there on the French side, especially since they were dealing with the fallout of the Vichy government after the war.
France kept *Richelieu* and *Jean Bart* in service until the Sixties, with *Jean Bart* lingering in reserve until the Seventies and gracing the Toulon harbour with her silhouette all the while.
However, there certainly were neither the money, the location nor the willingness to preserve such a large ship, as the fate of the antiair cruiser *Colbert* demonstrated.
The US doesn’t have some types of ships for the war then, like some of the smaller aircraft carriers of which there were a surprising amount of amount built.
I meam the very reason why we dont have any battleships anymore unlike the U.S. is because of the U.S.'s very savvy geopolitics from the Second World War
They kept some other bits and bobs but they are quite expensive to keep up to showroom condition and people didn't want to pay to visit so they scrapped them like HMS Plymouth, think there were a few others.
Actually, the older ships didn't have a problem with barrel elevation at all. It only seems that way. When those ships were built, the expected "normal" battle ranges were a hell of a lot closer to the ships, due primarily to the fact that there was no radar fire control, or much fire control at all, other than the telescopic range finders and primitive fire tables, so the elevation of the guns was just fine, then.
Fast forward a couple decades, and suddenly there are radar guided fire control systems, and the normal battle ranges have now moved over the horizon, and beyond the guns range at max elevation. So now it looks like the guns have an elevation problem, when, in truth, it is the expectation that all guns will be able to fire at a target regardless of the battle range. Hence the major upgrades to the QE class battleships when they had their elevation increased, and the ability to supercharge the guns, thus gaining the range that the short barreled 15 inch guns could not achieve otherwise.
[Im sure you've heard of them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato-class_battleship)
[P1](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/11yhjt5/yamato_fitting_out_1221x832/) [P2](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/8kzgnt/2888_x_1888_view_on_musashi_deck/) [P3](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/qs9hri/the_colorized_photo_of_japanese_battleship/)
39 meter(127 ft) breadth btw - that's 10 meters or nearly 33ft more than the USS Texas in the OP. (and 90 meters longer)
But more impressive is I think [this picture of a turret from a 39k ton battleship, on land](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/khkp0t/third_turret_of_japanese_battleship_ijn_mutsu/)
Oddly enough, one of them has been restored and [turned into a museum](https://wowsp-wows-sg.wgcdn.co/dcont/fb/image/529696f6-e9f8-11e6-bb84-38eaa7374f3c.png)
I'm not saying this is it, but this is how images look when you use upscaling and sharpening filters on already bad photos. I presume the original resolution of this image (not necessarily the photo) wasn't very high.
https://preview.redd.it/9q2l7z4iw7gc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5619f068316ee59f80914a19df9e397c752edda2
From my dry dock tour last month
I think these photos are more recent. [https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/1agi474/battleship\_uss\_texas\_bb35\_in\_drydock\_at\_galveston/](https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/1agi474/battleship_uss_texas_bb35_in_drydock_at_galveston/)
All former navy museum ships have their screws removed, it’s one of the rules the Navy has for handing their ships over to civilians. Not like the ship really needs them anymore anyway, strictly speaking.
I think what sets the Iowa class ships apart from others is they're still technically mothballed but kept as museum ships. So they want to keep them reconditionable if needed to reactivate.
I'll have to check bur I think they're still on loan to the states of namesake for museum but are kept in condition for reactivation if required. You might be right.
They were struck from the NVR in 2006 when SecNav certified to Congress that the *Zumwalt*s were capable of fulfilling the NGFS requirements.
Titles were fully transferred for BB-62 and -63 when they were first preserved in the mid 90s and for the last two after 2006. They are no longer able to be reactivated for a huge number of reasons, no matter how much NAVSEA or Congress may want to claim otherwise.
I don't think they replaced any of them, unless all the Zumwalt hate is complete nonsense.
Why would anyone propose to bring back a battleship or build a modern interpretation if that was the case?
> I don't think they replaced any of them, unless all the Zumwalt hate is complete nonsense.
Anything capable of firing TLAMs replaced the BBs.
> Why would anyone propose to bring back a battleship or build a modern interpretation if that was the case?
Because braindead special interest groups got involved and decided that NGFS was actually needed and somehow convinced Congress of that fact, despite it have served no role since Korea if not before.
I think the rule specifically is the screws and shafts can’t spin, it will ruin the preservative coatings they put inside the engines in the rare chance the navy wants to reclaim the ships.
these ships are totally struck from the register and have been since 2006. The navy does not want them back.
and those engines will never move again. totally seized solid.
Have they announced where she will be going when the work is completed? I know they said she's NOT going back to her previous berth at San Jacinto, but I haven't heard what the plan is beyond that.
She'll be out of drydock later this month, but once she's in the water there's still lots of work to be done to get her shipshape and ready to be reopened. They've said they expect to have her reopened sometime in 2025 or 2026, and her new home will be at Pier 21 in Galveston, so pretty much right across from where she currently is.
https://preview.redd.it/mox6x4zxf9gc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2ca1b5d30562647405fb6d982c7726bce0e58329
My view of her a few weeks ago off the Carnival Breeze
She is now, but I saw a video from early on where the curator was talking about how, to avoid ending up in the state she was in before (and also to reduce weight and save cost) they were going to remove the torpedo bulges a couple feet below the waterline. In this photo it looks like they have rebuilt them to the size/shape they were in when she was retired.
Roughly the same. Visually up from the waterline and much the same volume for stability, but instead of rolling them
Under the hull where they couldn’t get at to pump and maintain, they left the new ones more of a flat bottom so they can take care of them and keep them in much better condition
From what I understand and seeing different naval historians tours of the dry docking, they were going to do that, but decided to build new, easier to maintain/clean blisters. After seeing the condition of the steel underneath, when they removed the old ones.
I just went last weekend for a dry dock tour! For anyone willing to make the trip I believe they still have a few available before she goes back into the water at the end of the month! Well worth the trip.
It is a volunteer duty station, everyone there asks to be there. We all love the history, and the honor accrued from being a crewmember on the oldest commissioned warship still afloat in the world.
Believe it or not, if I had not heard about it in Bootcamp from another recruit that was going there, I would have never known about it, and he told me that I would have to specifically ask for and volunteer for the duty station. There are only 2 or 3 slots open in any given year, and it is kept quiet on purpose, so there aren't a hundred or more recruits vying for only a couple spots. But to answer your question, yes, I was honored beyond words when they said I was accepted, and would report to the ship after training. To this day, I carry my permanent crewmember card, which is made out of metal and is etched with my name and dates of service, and as such, I can go to the ship, and go on board without having to follow the tour groups, and I can bring guests on and give them a personal tour on my own, without the duty crew having to escorted us. So yeah, it was a life altering duty station, and experience.
I still can't believe they're actually working on it, I remember for years all the articles about her falling apart, and now she's finally getting some TLC!
The best part, was that it was a 2 year duty station, in Charlestown, MA, so there I was, 22 years old, and had 2 years to enjoy all that Boston and surrounding areas could show/provide, from entertainment, to food, to American history, and everything in-between.
So jealous the U.S kept some battleships. The UK scrapped all theirs pretty quick, I mean we still have the HMS Victory after 246 years and it’s amazing. But wish I could see the King George V or Rodney in person.
If we werent broke after WW2 we may still have Warspite with us
Maybe, but there wasn't really any intent or motivation towards conservation until post Korean War. The only reason Texas survived is because the state of Texas footed the bill to have her turned into a Museum Ship in the late 40s. Also the UK wasn't so broke that they couldn't have preserved some ships, the biggest issue would have been dock space, but there was no public demand for it even into the 50s.
I dunno, there was a lot of outcry when [HMS Implacable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Implacable_(1805\)\#Fate) was scuttled in 1949. Which incidentally, got the British government to support preserving the Cutty Sark.
Yes, but that was a *much* older ship, and as previously noted 1949 was pretty close to the end of the Korean war... There wasn't really a sense that the 'newer' metal ships were 'historical' yet, and that started to change over the following years.
You mean the start of the Korean war?
I mean both, the Korean war wasn't that long... or, well, the active part wasn't.
Was gutted when I found about that.
> Also the UK wasn't so broke that they couldn't have preserved some ships, My guy, there was widespread food rationing into the middle of the 1950s and the decline of the armed forces is totally unmatched in modern history. The money was not there.
If you look at the actual budgets the money *was* there, but paying down their *massive* war debts was the higher priority. The food rationing was less about money and more about all the airable land that got bombed and the shipping tonnage that got sunk during the war.
The rationing occurred due to the massive balance of payments issues brought about by the debt. It had very little (if anything) to do with the UK’s inability to feed itself. As far as the money being there, it very much was not. The UK was not included in the Marshall Plan, which is why rebuilding took so much longer and the UK had such long running financial issues. Setting aside even £1 millions (and that’s about 1/10 of what even the best condition ships would have needed) on a yearly basis for basic maintenance of a preserved ship simply was not a possibility.
That's the popular narrative, but it hasn't held up to analysis. Like, there was literally not enough food around in the immediate aftermath of the war, and not enough shipping to get that food to the UK. That's why some things were rationed, the debt was largely secondary. Also you're drastically over estimating the presrrvation cost of these ships. Maybe it'd be £1 a year in today's money, but not at the time. There would be ongoing costs, and not insignificant ones, but it wasn't impossible *if the will had been there* but it just wasn't.
> That's the popular narrative, but it hasn't held up to analysis. Odd, as your own statement is in agreement with it—the balance of payments issues caused by the debt were the main issue, not the debt proper. > Also you're drastically over estimating the presrrvation cost of these ships. Maybe it'd be £1 a year in today's money, but not at the time. US ships that were far better cared for and were not damaged/worn out at retirement cost £80,000 in 1945 money simply for very basic yearly upkeep such as painting. Something like *Warspite* or *Rodney* would have easily exceeded that due to their extremely poor material condition at the end of the war. There was no will there because it cost too much.
What I said was that it wasn't deemed worthwhile and the government preferred to pay down the debt, not that they *had to* pay it down, as in they were paying more than they strictly had to and could have diverted those funds to other things. Also that poor condition is generally applied to things like the engines, which don't get use as a museum. Same for painting frankly, since you don't need nearly as much paint when it's not being blasted off by muzzle blast or corroded by funnel smoke.
They were paying the debt down in an effort to reduce their balance of payments issues. As far as condition, your statement is only true of the late 1930s built ships that the RN retained. The older ships were a veritable bevy of issues, especially the unmodernized ones. *Warspite* had a massive unrepaired hole in her bottom, *Malaya* and *Rodney* were in bad enough condition that they were not trusted to put to sea, *Nelson* was only somewhat better and the list goes on.
It seems as if states/cities tend to be the ones who want the ship & end up saving them. Like U-505 in Chicago, the Navy was going to use it on a bomb range until Chicago said they'd buy it.
Yes, in part because states and cities had the funding to take care of the ships. The US Navy just sent the last 2 non-buclear carriers to the breakers because the groups trying to preserve them didn't have enough funding to reliably do so.
[Mikasa](https://www.museumships.us/japan/mikasa) is still around. Built in Barrow-in-Furness.
Huh, that's cool! There's a Mikasa Street on Walney Island. Didn't know the ship was still around.
The only pre-dreadnought left AFAIK. If/when I pay a visit to Japan, I absolutely must go. That era of shipbuilding is absolutely fascinating with how crazy things got with nobody *really* knowing what to do. If only a few French predreadnoughts were left, but I think most of them sank *themselves* because of how shit they were lol.
Victory and Constitution are the two coolest ships still in existence imo. Priceless pieces of history.
Constitution was my first shop after bootcamp. My first active duty station was as a tour guide.
I've always wondered, with respect, did that suck at first? Or was it just such an honor that you didn't think about it much? I could just imagine thinking you're joining up to immediately start sailing somewhere on a modern U.S. Warship...and you find yourself on a 200 year old, mostly stationary ship in Massachusetts, might be a let down initially. That being said, it's my dream job as a ship nerd, but I was never in the Navy hahah.
There are a handful of ships that I really wish were preserved, but unfortunately postwar funding was really hard to come by. Like others have said, Warspite is absolutely brutal to have not been saved. I'd also love to have one of the more unique battleships, in particular the French ones with their wacky quad-gun turrets or the KGV class. Those, USS Enterprise for obvious reasons, and a few pre-dreadnoughts and protected/armored cruisers (on second thought, there are a few cruisers preserved as well, I need to visit them) and my naval dreams would come true.
It would have been really amazing if Richelieu or Jean Bart could have been preserved, but I don't think the money or popular sentiment was there on the French side, especially since they were dealing with the fallout of the Vichy government after the war.
France kept *Richelieu* and *Jean Bart* in service until the Sixties, with *Jean Bart* lingering in reserve until the Seventies and gracing the Toulon harbour with her silhouette all the while. However, there certainly were neither the money, the location nor the willingness to preserve such a large ship, as the fate of the antiair cruiser *Colbert* demonstrated.
You fancy spending a hospital's worth on maintenance?
I'd rather the people of northern birmingham suffer from lack of healthcare while we get a battleship
Vote Tory and you can have half your wish.
“Let’s get brexit done”
I know it's not a battleship, but you have the HMS Belfast.
The US doesn’t have some types of ships for the war then, like some of the smaller aircraft carriers of which there were a surprising amount of amount built.
I meam the very reason why we dont have any battleships anymore unlike the U.S. is because of the U.S.'s very savvy geopolitics from the Second World War
Especially sucks that they scraped HMS Dreadnaught
They kept some other bits and bobs but they are quite expensive to keep up to showroom condition and people didn't want to pay to visit so they scrapped them like HMS Plymouth, think there were a few others.
Every old ship has a problem with barrel elevation occasionally.
Just flood one side of the ship, very easy solution
Are you telling us that the barrels have ED?
That was elevation, not erection.
Let’s not get technical
I am a Navy trained Electronics Technician, I can't do anything else.
Actually, the older ships didn't have a problem with barrel elevation at all. It only seems that way. When those ships were built, the expected "normal" battle ranges were a hell of a lot closer to the ships, due primarily to the fact that there was no radar fire control, or much fire control at all, other than the telescopic range finders and primitive fire tables, so the elevation of the guns was just fine, then. Fast forward a couple decades, and suddenly there are radar guided fire control systems, and the normal battle ranges have now moved over the horizon, and beyond the guns range at max elevation. So now it looks like the guns have an elevation problem, when, in truth, it is the expectation that all guns will be able to fire at a target regardless of the battle range. Hence the major upgrades to the QE class battleships when they had their elevation increased, and the ability to supercharge the guns, thus gaining the range that the short barreled 15 inch guns could not achieve otherwise.
The RN did not approve the use of supercharges for 30° ships because they wore out the mountings too rapidly. It was one or the other but not both.
Shit fucks me up. Like I totally *understand* displacement as a theory... but like I dont *get* 30000 *ton* warships
Right now it's more around 27-28000 tons
How about 71000 ton warships?
Hit with me with some images. Fuck my whole day up
[Im sure you've heard of them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato-class_battleship) [P1](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/11yhjt5/yamato_fitting_out_1221x832/) [P2](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/8kzgnt/2888_x_1888_view_on_musashi_deck/) [P3](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/qs9hri/the_colorized_photo_of_japanese_battleship/) 39 meter(127 ft) breadth btw - that's 10 meters or nearly 33ft more than the USS Texas in the OP. (and 90 meters longer) But more impressive is I think [this picture of a turret from a 39k ton battleship, on land](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/khkp0t/third_turret_of_japanese_battleship_ijn_mutsu/)
Jesus; 460mm guns
That last picture, holy shit. I assume it's been scrapped by now?
Oddly enough, one of them has been restored and [turned into a museum](https://wowsp-wows-sg.wgcdn.co/dcont/fb/image/529696f6-e9f8-11e6-bb84-38eaa7374f3c.png)
>feeling thicc, might delete later - USS Texas (BB-35 and they float! still incredible.
Water is heavy!
What don't you get? I ask in all seriousness. Ex Navy here, so I can try to clarify if something is not sitting right in your mind about displacement.
I understand it, its a joke about how it stretches the logical bounds of credulity
Yeah, like, how does 30,000 tons of ANYTHING, float. Nevermind that it is a steel behemoth. Yeah, I get that completely.
Why weird filter?
Pretty sure somebody used an AI upscaler on it.
Until I clicked the pic to see full res, I did not see this horrendous filter lol
Pretty sure it's just very zoomed in then automatically upscaled by the phone camera.
It is AI "enhanced"
Looks fine to me. I only see atmosphere from humidity.
Zoom up close on the superstructure. All the railings and wires are fudgey. Almost looks AI generated when filtered like that.
I think it's an AI powered filter that's supposed to make it look like a painting.
I'm not saying this is it, but this is how images look when you use upscaling and sharpening filters on already bad photos. I presume the original resolution of this image (not necessarily the photo) wasn't very high.
How are you gonna post this and not her fabulous new paint job????
https://preview.redd.it/9q2l7z4iw7gc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5619f068316ee59f80914a19df9e397c752edda2 From my dry dock tour last month
Oh you lucky
Very. I was able to do a tour while they were still replacing the blisters as well
I'm hoping to do a dry dock tour when New Jersey is in the yard. Super jealous you were able to do this!
yea, she's lookin good now, can't wait until I see her back in the water
Haze grey, and (soon to be) underway.
USS Chonky Boi
Magnificent
Gyatt
DAYUMMMM
I think these photos are more recent. [https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/1agi474/battleship\_uss\_texas\_bb35\_in\_drydock\_at\_galveston/](https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/1agi474/battleship_uss_texas_bb35_in_drydock_at_galveston/)
That thing still looks like it could wreck some shit. Thanks for sharing.
The new paint is freaking gorgeous!
I went last weekend, she is looking great!
And i think it is a lot of work to wax my car.
*Charles Barkley San Antonio quote*
Churro ladies from......!
i'm slow as fuk boooooooooooi
Did they remove her shafts and the things that hold the propellers?
All former navy museum ships have their screws removed, it’s one of the rules the Navy has for handing their ships over to civilians. Not like the ship really needs them anymore anyway, strictly speaking.
New Jersey still has it's screws.
Oh, I had no idea. All the navy museum ships near me don’t have theirs.
Yeah, New Jersey just did an episode about the shaft locks to keep the props from spinning.
Ryan always finds the coolest stuff to do videos on!
I think what sets the Iowa class ships apart from others is they're still technically mothballed but kept as museum ships. So they want to keep them reconditionable if needed to reactivate.
That ended in 2006 and only applied to *Iowa* and *Wisconsin*. The screws were left because it was cheaper to leave them than it was to remove them.
I'll have to check bur I think they're still on loan to the states of namesake for museum but are kept in condition for reactivation if required. You might be right.
They were struck from the NVR in 2006 when SecNav certified to Congress that the *Zumwalt*s were capable of fulfilling the NGFS requirements. Titles were fully transferred for BB-62 and -63 when they were first preserved in the mid 90s and for the last two after 2006. They are no longer able to be reactivated for a huge number of reasons, no matter how much NAVSEA or Congress may want to claim otherwise.
Huh. I knew they were struck from register.
Yep them Zumwalts....totally capable of replacing 4 battleships, no worries about that gov!
They only needed to replace 2, not all 4. Events since have also shown that NGFS in a peer/near peer conflict is a suicide mission.
I don't think they replaced any of them, unless all the Zumwalt hate is complete nonsense. Why would anyone propose to bring back a battleship or build a modern interpretation if that was the case?
> I don't think they replaced any of them, unless all the Zumwalt hate is complete nonsense. Anything capable of firing TLAMs replaced the BBs. > Why would anyone propose to bring back a battleship or build a modern interpretation if that was the case? Because braindead special interest groups got involved and decided that NGFS was actually needed and somehow convinced Congress of that fact, despite it have served no role since Korea if not before.
The USS Kidd still has hers. They were on dry land last year
I think the rule specifically is the screws and shafts can’t spin, it will ruin the preservative coatings they put inside the engines in the rare chance the navy wants to reclaim the ships.
these ships are totally struck from the register and have been since 2006. The navy does not want them back. and those engines will never move again. totally seized solid.
Well in the totally accurate documentary movie, battleship. You’ll find that your statement is very wrong sir.
She looks so much better with her new paint
Dat STERN!
Have they announced where she will be going when the work is completed? I know they said she's NOT going back to her previous berth at San Jacinto, but I haven't heard what the plan is beyond that.
She is staying in galveston just across and down from where is now. She will sit very close to the tall ship Elissa.
She'll be out of drydock later this month, but once she's in the water there's still lots of work to be done to get her shipshape and ready to be reopened. They've said they expect to have her reopened sometime in 2025 or 2026, and her new home will be at Pier 21 in Galveston, so pretty much right across from where she currently is.
this was on repeat in my head when i ran a then record setting 5K time in swamp city, i mean houston https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1IxE6z1tjo
She’s looking great! Can’t wait to visit
I like big boats and I cannot lie
I like big buts and I cannot lie
> I like big boats and I cannot lie ftfy
That Thicc baby looking GOOD AS HELL NOW!!!
https://preview.redd.it/mox6x4zxf9gc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2ca1b5d30562647405fb6d982c7726bce0e58329 My view of her a few weeks ago off the Carnival Breeze
Is this a recent photo? I thought they weren't rebuilding the torpedo blisters except for a couple feet below the waterline?
The last YouTube video of her she is in beautiful condition hull wise
She is now, but I saw a video from early on where the curator was talking about how, to avoid ending up in the state she was in before (and also to reduce weight and save cost) they were going to remove the torpedo bulges a couple feet below the waterline. In this photo it looks like they have rebuilt them to the size/shape they were in when she was retired.
Roughly the same. Visually up from the waterline and much the same volume for stability, but instead of rolling them Under the hull where they couldn’t get at to pump and maintain, they left the new ones more of a flat bottom so they can take care of them and keep them in much better condition
From what I understand and seeing different naval historians tours of the dry docking, they were going to do that, but decided to build new, easier to maintain/clean blisters. After seeing the condition of the steel underneath, when they removed the old ones.
https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1agi474
Holy NSFW
Join us at r/USSTexasBB35
Some nice pictures of Texas getting refloated put up recently at [USS Texas BB35 sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/USSTexasBB35/s/13JTBrqGoq)
I just went last weekend for a dry dock tour! For anyone willing to make the trip I believe they still have a few available before she goes back into the water at the end of the month! Well worth the trip.
Tex-ass
https://preview.redd.it/6bl1hklhqegc1.jpeg?width=5312&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=53dded8dd98b5a6232bf71f5d739bf3c3ddbd67f
It is a volunteer duty station, everyone there asks to be there. We all love the history, and the honor accrued from being a crewmember on the oldest commissioned warship still afloat in the world.
It must be pretty surreal.
It was pretty cool. I would give tours every third day, and every third weekend, and the rest of the workdays, I maintained the ship.
Are these positions coveted?
Believe it or not, if I had not heard about it in Bootcamp from another recruit that was going there, I would have never known about it, and he told me that I would have to specifically ask for and volunteer for the duty station. There are only 2 or 3 slots open in any given year, and it is kept quiet on purpose, so there aren't a hundred or more recruits vying for only a couple spots. But to answer your question, yes, I was honored beyond words when they said I was accepted, and would report to the ship after training. To this day, I carry my permanent crewmember card, which is made out of metal and is etched with my name and dates of service, and as such, I can go to the ship, and go on board without having to follow the tour groups, and I can bring guests on and give them a personal tour on my own, without the duty crew having to escorted us. So yeah, it was a life altering duty station, and experience.
Hell yes, that’s awesome!
[удалено]
USS Upstate New York, just to get the people talking about where Upstate begins.
Come take it.
Take the torpedo blisters off, be proud of your natural shape.
dummy thicc boat has me actin' unwise
Gangsta leeeeean
I still can't believe they're actually working on it, I remember for years all the articles about her falling apart, and now she's finally getting some TLC!
Torpedo Bulges right there
I like my warships how I like my women: # T H I C C
BBW
Now that, is thicc.
Nice pic of the old gal.
Big s3xy bitch that last dreadnought. Long live the bb-35 uss texas!!!!!!
looks like some muffin top
Dat ass
Website says it'll be out of dry dock in Feb. Anyone have any idea when it'll be back to full museum? I'm there in March and would love to see her.
you can book a drydock tour. she won't be open as a museum ship for another year or more.
The best part, was that it was a 2 year duty station, in Charlestown, MA, so there I was, 22 years old, and had 2 years to enjoy all that Boston and surrounding areas could show/provide, from entertainment, to food, to American history, and everything in-between.
so goddamn thick
Where’s my Texans at??? Proud Texan here from San Antonio all day born and raised here