The Battleship Texas is unique because she's a time capsule. Battleship Texas has survived over 100+ years and over that span she has seen major changes of Naval combat through out war and her shapes and pieces are a reflection of that history. That's why I think it's important that this battleship is saved and preserved further. She is the last American Dreadnought left.
Unfortunately she is not just the last remaining American Dreadnought, but the last remaining example of a Dreadnought in the entire world. This makes her preservation all the more important as she represents one of the major era's of naval history.
I like your take a lot. I once read a story about an aging general that was thought of as crusty and old fashioned, but the protagonist thought of him as "the first of the new, not the last of the old". Judging from what I have seen in this video, battleship Texas seems to embody that as well.
Yup. Not just last American Dreadnought but the last Dreadnought period. Mikasa in Japan is the last Pre- Dreadnought, Texas the Last Dreadnought and North Carolina, Alabama, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Iowa, Wisconsin and Missouri being WW2 Battleships.
The next destroyers will be capable of decimating a continent with 200kt nukes using cruise missles. Multiple VLS cells. The forward vls will have 12 cells capable of launching hypersonic cruise missiles
No argument there. Modern ships undoubtably have firepower and range even battleships cannot match. However I do think there is something valuable in a ship that actually looks like it was made for war. The Russians still see value in this and their ships all bristle with intentionally visible weapons. This design choice is less effective in some ways but fleets are often intended to project power abroad and if so, in my view they should look the part.
@@ProperLogicalDebate perhaps in the US - it's never (AFAIK) spelled with a 'u' anywhere else... Admittedly "everywhere else" mostly adopts British spelling, so this isn't very surprising.
The single most important development in the period between the Age of the Dreadnoughts (the 14" guns of Texas made her a "Super Dreadnought") and the Age of the Fast Battleship was the advent of all-metal monoplane combat aircraft. When USS Texas was laid down in 1911 airplanes were toys for wealthy adventurers. The only serious threat to any Dreadnought-type ship in 1911 was another Dreadnought, or a shore battery of Dreadnought-class rifles, or a torpedo boat. Torpedo boats were small, fast (30 knots or more), and highly maneuverable -- too fast and maneuverable for the main-battery guns to counter, hence the need for quick-firing secondaries. The ideal torpedo tactic was to attack at night from very close range, from 1000 yards or less. Countering such attacks was the reason for mounting the secondary battery as low in the hull as practical as being attacked by torpedo boats "under our guns" (i.e. too close for low-angle fire to target) was the nightmare scenario for any battleship captain in 1911. However, the realities of the First World War significantly altered American naval thinking. While it is true that Austria-Hungary lost a Dreadnought to an Italian torpedo boat, most of the capital ships sunk or gravely damaged in the 1914-1918 war were lost to main-battery fire and not the feared torpedo boat. (The advent of the torpedo-boat destroyer, a small, speedy escort with the endurance to operate with the battleline had much to do with that.) However, the Imperial German Navy introduced a weapon that profoundly affected naval strategy -- the airship. Prior to 1914 scouting for the enemy battle fleet was the job of the cruiser, however, the Germans could use airships for the same scouting role even more effectively. From 10,000 feet the horizon is more than 122 miles away, consequently, the German navy could enjoy excellent intelligence about any British fleet to squadron operating in the North Sea. The problem of German airships prompted a radical solution. Airships flew too high for deck-mounted machine guns or even Ordnance QF Hotchkiss 6 pounder guns on high-angle pedestal mounts. Countering German airships called for fighter aircraft which in turn called for ships that could launch and recover them. Catapult-lanched floatplane fighters were briefly considered, the Americans having demonstrated the feasibility of the technology in 1915, however, conditions in the North Sea complicated the problem enormously. The British solution was an entirely new type of warship -- an aircraft carrier. To that end, an oddball Royal Navy cruiser, HMS Furious, was radically converted. Originally to be armed with two 18-inch rifles in single turrets fore and aft, the biggest guns ever installed on a British warship, Furious was modified while under construction with a flight deck in place of her forward turret. Later, her aft turret was replaced by a second flight deck. In July 1918 HMS Furious launched the first strategic carrier raid in history, attacking the Zeppelin base at Tondern. Political conditions after the Treaty of Versailles were not conducive to the construction of new battleships. The world's major navies made do with the battleship hulls they already had. According to the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, capital ships under construction were either scrapped or converted to other types, most notably aircraft carriers. The Imperial Japanese Navy converted a battleship (Kaga) and a battlecruiser (Akagi) into aircraft carriers. Likewise, the USN converted two battlecruisers, Lexington and Saratoga, into the largest and fastest aircraft carriers of their day. All of these ships were large, expensive to build, and expensive to operate. Clearly both the American and Japanese admiralties considered them to be important fleet units. In the US Navy Lexington and Saratoga were still considered cruisers, thus their hull designations, CV-2 and CV-3. They were originally seen as long-range scouts for the battleline, essentially the equivalent of the German navy's Zeppelin airships but less vulnerable to adverse weather and AAA fire. (The USN also experimented with four highly advanced Zeppelin-type airships as fleet scouts, two of them, USS Akron and USS Macon, carried their own parasite defensive fighters. Three of the four crashed due to storms with heavy loss of life, and none were shown to be effective scouts when opposed by carrier-borne fighters.) The presence of aircraft carriers in possible enemy fleets made it imperative that battleship secondary armament had to be dual-purpose, first as high-angle open mounts with wide firing arcs, later in protected turrets. The post-war "battleship holiday" was ended by the London Naval Treaty of 1930. The major navies needed to build new battleships to augment and replace their aging Dreadnought-type ships. Fleet exercises conducted by the USN showed that the 20-knot speed of America's standard battleships was too slow to take full advantage of naval airpower, consequently, the new battleship classes would need greater speed, even at the expense of gun-platform stability. Consequently, sponson-mounted secondaries were not even considered in the new designs. The new ships would be long and lean rather than short and tubby -- more like well-protected battlecruisers than Dreadnoughts. Secondaries would be mounted high in the ship for greater sky arcs. Low-angle protection would be a matter for the escorting destroyers.
Excellent review. It's called iterative design. No one thing immediately pops out. The carrier and it's impact on battleships was seen early on. The US built it's new ships and the Japanese made incredible refits of the excellent battlecruisers of the Kongo class. The Royal Navy never built a true carrier escort battleship until after the war.
Texas is representative of a W.W. #1 design with casement mounted secondary batteries whereas New Jersey represents a W.W.#2 design of turreted 5" 38 cal. dual purpose secondary batteries. Glad to see the evolvement of naval battleship design from one war to the next.
@@GoldensRLife They are good comparisons though. Compare WW1 Badass to WW2 Badass and all the advancements between. BTW, if you haven't heard of him, TheFatElectrician here on YT has videos on the Texas and two of the Iowa's and possibly a general video on the Iowa's. They're short and amusing with plenty of colorful euphemisms.
You can really see the progression of battleship technology in these ships. The Texas being a dreadnought battleship shows the clear leap towards using the main battery as a preferred weapon system than the secondary battery from the pre dreadnought eras though you still see many of the clear design philosophies held over from the pre dreadnought era. (The large contingent of casemate secondaries, bow shape, and underwater torpedo tubes) (not 100% sure if Texas still has those) You don’t see the newer battleships for a number of years after the New York class, with the flared bow, more advanced gunnery leading to a substantially smaller focus on secondary guns as they were phased out for dual purpose secondary/AA guns as aircraft were more of a threat than ever. Really interesting in all respects, lovely ship!
To me the weirdest part of her design is the midships turret. It makes her look as if the Navy had an extra battleship turret laying around and didn't know where to put it.
25% more firepower in a broadside and 50% more firepower when running from the enemy. If you have to run you'll be zigzagging and can bring the three turrets to bear while a pursuing capital ship only has the two front turrets to shoot at you.
Originally the ships, as built, had three aft turrets, only after the refit had the rear tower been moved behind the third turret effectively making it a AB-P-XY instead of an AB-XYZ layout.
the problem with soo may turrets in ships of this era, is the magazines directly below each turret, that makes a ship with a lot of vulnerable magazines. Something they figured out later down the road.
USS Texas would ironically be the last "Turret Farm" Battleship since the follow on Class the Nevada's introduced Triple Turrets allowing the same number of guns as Texas without the Extra Turret. Before that Battlehips had tons of turrets- just look at the Wyoming Class.
@@AceofCrazy89 Comparing apples and oranges. The titanic was short and dumpy compared to it's contemporary counterparts. The Empire State Building is dwarfed by today's mega skyscrapers. So what? Your historical perspective sucks, my friend.
USS Texas DD-35 was a New York-class battleship, launched May 18, 1912 and commissioned on March 12, 1914. She was one of the baddest ships in the fleet in her time. There are many of us who value our history. These ships protected our nation in their time and should be honored for that. OK, maybe my ten years of Navy service do color my opinion just a bit but I feel a need to respect those that came before me. I served on one ship from WWII and two more from the 1960s. The lessons learned from those WWI & WWII ships were incorporated in the ships that followed them, to the benefit of myself and my shipmates.
As a native Houstonian, I recall visiting her numerous times over the years. Sitting on the gun turrets and turning the wheels looking through the sights imagining I was shooting at enemy aircraft is only one of my childhood memories. She always had a certain "smell" below decks that reminded me of an old ship and my imagination would drift to an earlier time when she was in fighting trim and her sailors were so very proud to serve on her. I walked the same spaces as those young sailors who fought on her many years earlier and could only wonder what they were thinking. She served in WW1 and WW2 and participated in the D-Day invasion of France. What a great old ship launched 108 years ago this year and I'm glad the State of Texas is taking care of her now.
Well, hopefully will be. The vote in favor of preservation was 15 years ago and the ship still hasn't made it into a drydock. :D "August 2022" is the most recent update I've seen.
I did exactly as you..pretending to shoot down enemy planes. I posted elsewhere that there is a picture of me on one of those anti-aircraft guns. After my father died in January I found a picture of him as a boy sitting on that same gun mount. It was a special moment.
Maybe when she is moved we can go down there more often, the state park situation being rediculously impossibly to get admission in recent years due to over booking of people looking to go to a nice land park, as the adjacent battleground is. About the smell, I remember going to the Lexington, on a winter morning in '96, when it actually froze in Corpus Christi, and it was so hot from only the lighting that it was dificult to imagine being in action in the tropics and not have the crew falling out from the heat.
I have a piece from the Battleship Texas that is cut into the shape of Texas and is dated and numbered. It came with my special edition Battleship Texas 1911 pistol, from years ago when they were raising money. It’s a beautiful pistol with engravings and inlays, and with a piece of the ship itself included it makes for a neat collectors piece for a native Houstonian like myself. I’ve been to the museum and seen the ship a couple times over the years and I think it’s a really neat piece of history.
I just watched a video on the work being done on the Texas. I wondered if they had a shop. Yes they do. They sell a 3” Texas made from the battleships steel. I wanted one but it’s $150. Their store merchandise goes to help fund the work but I can’t justify paying $150 for a 1/4 to 3/8 inch thick Texas.
@@frankedgar6694 Ya, I believe that’s about the same size my piece is. Honestly I couldn’t justify spending $150 on that either so I’m glad mine at least came with a pistol. I could maybe see someone justifying it if it was like $40-$50, which is still a lot considering what it is, but definitely not $150 so I don’t blame you.
@@treyriver5676 It’s got wood grips that have a star engraved in each of them but that’s it if I remember correctly. It’s also not wood from the ship because I don’t think there was any wood on the ship lol.
I know a lot of people might have problem finding an extra $150 lying around for something like this - but I figure that's about 9 or 10 meals at Whataburger (maybe less if you like to splurge) - and where are those meals now?@@frankedgar6694
I know it's probably actually a youtube engagement thing but it always amuses me when Ryan asks the follow-up questions like we're a school group on a field trip. Shows his museum educator roots and genuine care for getting people to really connect to these artifacts on a personal level.
Thank you so much for highlighting our old, beautiful Battleship. She's the last of the New York class Dreadnoughts. And she needs our help BADLY. She needs a lot of work inside and out. She's currently scheduled to be towed to the Port of Galveston for drydock repairs. Then, most likely to be relocated to a new birth to be determined. I was lucky enough to perform some volunteer electrical work on her a few years ago. And, I hope to be able to do so again. Please consider making a donation for the old lady. She served us and her Crews well. We owe it to her and the memories and honor of her crews. Thanks for reading my post. Long Live TEXAS!!!!!
I worked in a Navy shipyard for 18 years. When there are multiple ways to fulfill a design requirement the solution picked was often the one with the loudest advocate.
I also worked in a naval shipyard for 19 years as a welder apprentice, WG10, high pressure pipe welder....and GS series. Your statement is totally true.
i think it comes down to the tech and doctrine of the day. you got to remember the texas was completed in 1912 which means she was designed by people that were born in the late 1800's and taught marine engineering by people who designed ships that had only sails. not only that, you got to wonder how old the brass was that signed off on everything. these guys probably viewed naval warfare differently to now. point is, no wonder texas had gun ports, that's what worked then. it's interesting to think that we'd consider a battleship a bit of a waste of time to build now. but that's only because we can put 30 missiles through a portal and into some admirals bowl of soup from like 5000kms away with the push of a button and enjoy a caramel frappuccino while we wait.
@@davidb6576 no they're saying it's far more hands off than it used to be, no need for crews on deck of battleships when a sub or silo or drone can just pop out a targeted missile strike wherever they want to
1912 is the launching. Construction continued to 10 March 1912 with the last hull plate was installed. Even after the 12 March 1914 commission, construction still continued until 23 March at Norfolk Navy Yard. Ater Norfolk, BB35 went to the New York Navy Yard for further work until late April-early My 1914
I think you are underestimating how much science was involved in the design of these ships. Heck, a good 75% of modern engineering is based on science that was well known in the 1900s. For instance, consider how insanely large the Great Eastern was for it's time, still bigger than USS Texas while being build 55 years earlier. It was not technology that was limiting the size of later constructions, but more the lack of perceived need to go that big (with the funding available). Also the New York class was more towards the end of super-dreadnought 2nd generation. She's roughly contemporary with the Queen Elizabeth's, who where contending for the most technologically capable battleships of WW1. Casemates had some considerable advantages as a design, and while it's drawbacks where known, they where considered subservient to the benefit of adding more guns on a certain displacements with the experience at the time. Moving over to deck-level casemates, or even turret mounted secondary guns, where always at the cost of less guns or less protection because of how it would make the ships more top-heavy.
yes although indeed a lot of science went into the naval designs at the time, there was also a lot of preconception and bias towards what ships should be like, and the old guard "Battleship Admirals" had a lot of sway on naval design and were quite conservative. This is why it took so long for archaic features to disappear like rigged masts, ram bows, flying bridges and prow casemates
If I remember correctly, when launched in 1914, she had a ‘bird cage’ mast, replaced in I believe 1927 at Norfolk Naval Yard. She was also the first battleship to launch a plane. 😁
You are correct, she had 2 lattice masts with small fighting tops like the later Standard battleships. But the New Yorks were apparently too small for two full sized tripod masts with the large fighting tops (I have a book on USS Texas that mentions this). So New York and Texas were refitted with one tripod mast and the backup director mounted low behind the third turret. That would be an interesting topic. What exactly was in those huge fighting tops that US battleships got in the 30s? I know they were the main directors, I just wonder what the insides looked like. They always look precarious to me, like they might be too heavy for the tripods (they were too heavy for the lattice masts, there was one that collapsed which is why the Navy went to the tripods, a conversion that wasn't complete by Pearl Harbor).
Inn addition to the first plane launched by a battleship, the Texas was also the ship that fired the first American shots of WWI and was the ship during Operation Torch in 1942 that Eisenhower gave the "Voice of Freedom" speech imploring the Vichy French not to fire on Americans. This beautiful ship reeks of history.
Battleship Texas is, I believe, the last floating dreadnought-era battleship in existence. If you compare her design and lines to other dreadnought-era ships she fits in well. She was retrofitted a great deal (most apparent are the masts that were replaced from her original ones) and served during WWII when bigger, more modern battleships were being developed. As she is pretty much the last example of her kind she does look strange compared to modern battleships, but not to her contemporaries.
Honestly I never thought of the length to beam ratio having an affect on gunnery. I hope the devs of Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts watch this channel. I would love to see them add a length to beam slider in the in game shipyard. A choice between a less hydrodynamic yet stable gun platform, a fast and more nimble yet rocky platform, or a balance somewhere in between.
A lot more goes into designing a gunnery platform than that. Much of it has to do with the relative position center of mass vs center of buoyancy. Sure, the length to beam ratio plays a part, but it has much more to do with speed vs maneuverability. I absolutely love this channel and Ryan's videos, but if you want indepth videos on ship design (on ships that aren't the New Jersey), check out drachinifel: m.th-cam.com/video/fkRJxgYgTVA/w-d-xo.html I'm waiting for their crossover event.
If you like learning that sort of thing, check out drachinifel as well. He's a naval historian, and typically covers much broader topics (like the development of naval armor)
@@meh12345HEY I heard several times that the Russians/Soviets avoided superfiring turrets on battleships almost solely because of the fact that it raises the center of mass and thus would be a detritment to seakeeping in icy conditions (which is something they were understandably concerned about). No idea if it's true though, I'm no expert.
@@michaireneuszjakubowski5289More or less, yes. It adds mass higher up, but also adds surfaces higher up upon which snow can accumulate, the real problem in the equation being snow because water is heavy. Drachinifel talks about it in one of his videos, not sure which off the top of my head though.
@@saturn5mtw567 Drach is coming to the US in April, and has apparently been in touch with Ryan for one or possibly more joint videos while he’s here. Keep an eye out for earthquakes, tsunamis, and strange stellar phenomena resulting from the singularity of greatness that will occur.
If I remember correctly, Texas was the first ship equipped with radar. It was a tiny room and was the only place on the ship with air conditioning. I also seem to remember those "gun decks" being a later addition to the ship.
Now that, I find humorous, your reference to the "small air-conditioned radar room." I was assigned as an Electronics Tech, to the Data Systems School at Mare Island, in Vallejo, California in 1969. None of us knew about it at that time, but when we went to our assigned ships, we found that all of the computer and much of the radio gear was cooled to 68-72 degrees. A chilled water system was plumbed from the engine room up to heat exchangers in the equipment. Some of the Machinist Mates and Enginemen would come up to visit occasionally to get out of their shops that were typically running closer to 120 -140 degrees when we were in the Tokin Gulf, off the Vietnam coast.
Texas and her sister ships were fitted with radar in December 1938. HMS Saltburn was fitted with a prototype radar in 1936. HMS Sheffield had the kind of radar that Texas and New York had by August 1938.
Well if you think about it, not that crazy. HMS Warrior was the first full iron hulled ship, she was launched in 1860, and she launched in a world of wooden ships-of-the-line. Only 45 years later, the HMS Dreadnought was launched. The Iowas are almost 80 years old, and the Enterprise, the first nuclear carrier, was built 60 years ago. Texas was closer to the age of sail than we are to the first CVN.
@@magisterrleth3129 Yup. Abrams Main Battle Tanks entered service in the late 70's which is now over 40 years ago. the F-15 is about to turn 50. The B-52 will be turning 70
I've visited the Texas several times and I didn't know any of this. Very interesting. I'm proud of the ship that bears my home state's name and hope she lasts for a hundred more years.
Being a boomer ('47) living in Pasadena, Texas, south of Houston, The Battleship Texas has always been a part of my life. In the 60's we could go through the ship top to bottom, even down in shaft alley and see the amazing engines. It's in terrible condition now and I hope it can be refurbished and painted again soon. It was last done in the late 80's I believe. Naval warfare has changed many times since the turn of the 20th century and the Texas is a true time capsule worth keeping. Thank you for this great video.
I've been to a fair number of museum ships, but as a native Houstonian, visiting multiple time over my life, BB35 is my favorite, The various carriers are my second favorites.
@@shadowgarr7649 I've been to the Lexington, Midway, and Intrepid, from a carrier perspective. As a young child, I stood beside the Coral Sea while she was still commissioned (late sixties?) in Houston but doubt we boarded her.
No carrier had the WW2 battle history of the Enterprise, so it was scraped. It would have been the only classic straight deck carrier full of guns and not modernize like the other carriers now on display.
Having been born in Houston, and spent many Sundays at the old San Jacinto Inn right next to Texas’ berth, I find the ship to be absolutely beautiful. New Jersey is also beautiful, but it’s from 30 years later.
I miss the San Jacinto Inn. I have no idea why it closed. The building was still there in 2007. Place had no menu. Waiters came to your table with what they had that day and it was always good. I think you could opt out of the daily menu and they would bring you fried chicken or something, but why would you go there if you didn't want shrimp and fish?
HMS Nelson & HMS Rodney are definitely in the "weird" category, with all three gun turrets forward of the superstructure, to help them comply with the Washington Naval Treaty displacement limits.
They were originally laid-down as super Battlecruisers over 900 feet long mounting 5 turrets. The ships were basically cut short after the superstructure loosing a third of their length and weight. I have a model of Rodney and when looking at it can see an almost cut and patch design.
@@briansearles4473 I'm sorry, but...no, they definitely were not. The Nelsons were always intended to have three turrets mounting 16-inch guns, and they were always intended to be battleships, complying with the restrictions of the Washington Naval Treaty. They were laid down as such. I have no idea where you got that information from, but it's very wrong, I'm afraid. The Nelsons were an adaptation of the N3 design, but with smaller guns (16 inch rather than 18 inch), a different turret placement and so on. Britain did come to close to building the G3-class "battlecruisers", and a couple of them may even have been laid down, though there's no evidence to confirm it. The G3's would've been 856 feet long, carrying nine 16 inch guns, capable of 32 knots and carrying thicker armour than any battleship afloat (including the American Colorados, Britsh Queen Elizabeths and Japanese Nagatos). The Washington Naval Treaty meant the cancellation of the G3's, preventing a second naval arms race in the 20th century between Britain and the United States. Given that the American Lexington and South Dakota-class ships were considerably inferior to the British G3 and N3 designs, that was probably a good thing for the US.
@@briansearles4473 The Nelsons were G3 battlecruisers with their engine power mutilated to meet the 35,000 tons restrictions of the Treaty. At the time the Royal Navy referred to them as 'Cherry Tree Ships.' Cut down by Washington, of course.
“While ships a generation or two older might have been done by gut feeling and with artistic license…” > Looks nervously at Drach’s French Pre-Dreadnaughts video
Ah, the U.S.S. Texas... shares a name with my home state, made one of the best gun platforms of the war for her design, and really her design makes her better! Her curves, her edges, her guns... Really, it's not always about how smooth she is, but about what sets her off from others around her and what makes her beautiful. That's the U.S.S. Texas for you, folks, a real 'beaut.
I appreciate your explanation of the design of the bow. Most of the other books I've read that talk about it say that it was a leftover from the days of ramming, which seemed silly, but not quite impossible. Nice to know that there was some actual science involved there.
Think of it like a proto-bulbus bow that most modern ships have now. Water tank experiments definitely were helping shape hull forms into more hydrodynamic shapes. There is an interesting video for the Yamato's bulbus bow that goes more indepth with this concept.
I can't completely explain it, but there are similar bows on modern supertankers. Something to do with stopping the hull riding up on the bow wave. Does that make sense?
I was able to visit the Texas back in 1999. Awesome to see it. But, the mosquitos were so bad below deck, I had to retreat before I could see the engine room. Glad they are going to save her.
Some of this relates to the changing role of the battleship. In WWI, they were still very much the capital ships of any fleet. They were expected to engage other ships in decisive battles. Later on, once aircraft carriers became more powerful and important, battleships became go to platforms for shore bombardment.
@@Cailus3542 For the time, she and other older battleships we're the perfect invasion gun platforms. I can't remember the name of the captain during the Normandy Invasion, but he had one side of the ship partially flooded to allow her main guns a steeper angle to increase, the range of her shells to knock out tanks and fortified emplacements. Fun fact: when you come on board Texas, you'll see the German 240mm shell that struck her during a running gun battle with German artillery at the invasion of Cherbourg, but miraculously didn't detonate.
While that might be true for US battleships I doubt it holds true for all battleships. As HMS King George V and HMS Duke of York both engaged battleships of the Kriegsman (KMS Bismarck and KMS Scharnhorst) in direct surface combat and both of those ships also had a 10 gun broadside.
As a local to the Houston area I've been the ship dozens of times in my life, starting when I was small boy with my Grandfather who was a naval doctor in WWII on ship. She's a gem for sure and hopefully will last another 100 years after some restoration. Can't wait to take my kids back to see her in her new glory.
Your support from the Battleship New Jersey, for the Battleship Texas is GREATLY appreciated. We are all brothers in arms even though we bicker among ourselves in peacetime. Kind of like a family with brothers who fight among themselves all the time, God be with whoever decides to fight the brothers! Thank you New Jersey! Cheers from Texas!
I love when a machine has physical features that stand out like that. There is something elegant to being able to pint all guns forward and fire at a target under pursuit. I love warship evolution and the way the dreadnaught classes were designed as a weapon of mass destruction.
Being from Texas, and a multi-time tourer of said beauty, we just recently got to tour Jersey in Camden- we love what you are doing back north, and greatly appreciate your support for our Southern Belle!
How about the USS Texas had Torpedo Tubes in her original configuration? How ships that served over longer time frames like Texas and New Jersey had new and different technology added and removed from them.
@@Manticore2026 Most countries that operated battleships, both pre- and post-Dreadnought, had torpedo tubes on them for a while there. Even Dreadnought herself had a few torpedo tubes! Eventually, though, most navies realized that torpedoes on battleships aren't a particularly good idea; While they pack a heck of a punch, ideally you want a battleship to keep the range open so it can use its main battery to the fullest effect, and if you aren't using the tubes they're just massive targets filled with lots of explosives. This is also why most countries ended up mostly only putting torpedo tubes on destroyers or smaller ships; While they're a big vulnerable target, a ship that small can't pack very much armor anyway, and even if the tubes go up, at least it was a (relatively speaking) small and cheap destroyer or something rather than a huge expensive battleship.
@@noahlinden9641 Almost all the capital ships at Jutland had torpedo tubes. They were mostly discarded inter-war as ineffective and a liability (a hole in your hull where you want strength). The US navy went a step further and abandoned torpedoes form new build cruisers (An explosion hazard), saved weight used for more guns, armour and propulsion. The only confirmed Battleship torpedo hit I've read about is HMS Rodney on an immobile and sinking Bismarck. A task that could have been delegated to a destroyer or Cruiser.
Loved Ryan's comment about the gun deck being reminiscent of the 1700's. The first time I toured the Texas and saw the secondary battery in the deck house, it was like touring a warship from the age of sail. I think I even bumped my head on the low ceilings.
In my opinion each incremental change was thought through thoroughly. Navies were known to be conservative and resistant to change so any change that made it to actual build had gone through the procurement equivalent of the Spanish inquisition.
One thing I think about with the 5" guns mounted on the "gun deck" is that there is a lower center of gravity. The higher the center of gravity, the more the ship rolls and makes the point of turning turtle much less.
The critical reason for moving to turret mounted secondaries was the need for dual purpose guns. The use of the secondary battery as heavy anti-aircraft guns was more important than the anti-surface role.
The lower position of the casement mounted guns meant they often couldn't be used in even moderate seas. Also they were far more vulnerable to hits which might cause ammunition explosions or fires. Plus they allowed water to enter the ship which lowered habitablity quite a lot. There were quite a few drawbacks to casements, which is why they were discontinued in later designs, and plated over in older designs.
If I Recall Correctly, USS Texas was originally built with 21 (!) 5 inch guns in her secondary battery. Several were sacrificed early on, but when they were moved up to the deck house only six were kept. Top weight was probably a strong consideration.
@@ericbowen650 While this was happening, fleet destroyers grew to 1,500 - 2,000 tons, and mounted similar calibre guns to the battleship secondary. So that secondary battery could focus more on knocking down aeroplanes, while a destroyer screen took on enemy torpedo capability.
The obvious, very US navy, feature that's been replaced is the cage mast. A fascinating mathematical / engineering invention. I do wonder how the crew enjoyed ascending and working at height in them.
The cage masts proved faulty after some came crashing down after going through storms. The implementation of bigger and heavier fire control sighting equipment and radar arrays necessitated the change to sturdier tripod masts.
I've wondered sometimes if the spotters who worked at the top of the tripod received anything like hazard pay for having to work there. I suspect not, though. Great view if no one's shooting at you, but I'd be nervous about a hit to the superstructure making that thing go "timber" if I had to work up there.
You do a great job. I'm an old Vietnam War Army soldier who enjoys your talks. Was in the MRF in 69, supported by the USS Benewah near Dong Tam for a time
As far as the speed goes, that never really hurt the standard battleships. Battleships in general were used pretty defensively by everybody, the only things they really couldn't do was keep up with a carrier group in a hurry. And that's not bad when you consider that the #1 deciding factor of their design was keeping a modest budget.
Depends, the English Revenge-class BBs were built after the Queen Elizabeth-class but were used far less extensively because they took so long to get anywhere (20kts vs 25kts sea speed).
@@waverleyjournalise5757Fair point. But part of the issue is that they already have faster ships, why use the Revenges? American standard ships were intentionally designed to avoid that issue, by deciding on a standard speed of 21 knots. That way, Congress can tell the Navy they only get two ships per class, but every preceding class can operate with even the most modern units. And then we realized that speed might be important in the vast expanse of the Pacific, and so speed became priority #1, and the result is a ship that's as cheap with her armament and and armor as the last classes were with their machinery, but she's 12 knots faster.
I tend to disagree. The slow speed of the Standards rendered them virtually obsolete in WW2, unlike the faster Queen Elizabeths and Nelsons, which were just about fast enough to be viable against modern battleships. The slow speed of the Standards made sense in the 1910's, particularly after the Battle of Jutland, but speed became far more important in later years. That's one of many reasons why the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was such a mistake. They attacked a fleet which would've been virtually useless in the Pacific War that was about to unfold.
As their use evolved fast battleships became huge anti aircraft batteries to protect the carriers and the older standard battleships were used for shore bombardment. The battle of Surigao Strait was a exception.
@@BigTrain175 The Pacific War as a whole was an exception. In the more confined waters around Europe, fast battleships of all kinds were used more frequently in an offensive role against surface shipping. People tend to hook onto the "carriers made battleships obsolete in WW2" line, when it isn't actually true. It was the advent of jet aircraft that made battleships obsolete. The rare use of battleships in the Pacific was due to a combination of factors. Most of the American fleet was knocked out on day one, obviously, or else they would've been deployed (and likely sunk by carrier aircraft). Beyond that, Japanese strategic doctrine meant that the Japanese held back their battleships for a "decisive battle" that never came. The vast waters of the Pacific also meant that interception of enemy surface forces was unlikely. It did nearly happen in 1945, when the French fast battleship Richelieu was hunting the Japanese cruiser Takao, but a British destroyer squadron sunk it before the intercept happened. It also happened at Leyte Gulf, but again, exception. Contrast that to the Atlantic, Med and North Sea. Bismarck and Scharnhorst were sunk by British battleships, while Tirpitz was trapped in Norway for fear of encountering them. Battleships saw heavy use in the Med, most particularly at Cape Matapan. The British had fleet carriers and used them quite effectively (Taranto, for instance), but in those theatres, heavy ships like battleships and cruisers were still critical.
The 6.1 inch 51 caliber gun system were called Casement gun ports and covered a good amount of open area for the guns to target smaller ships, even Destroyer’s.
Texas has a practice loading machine located on the port side of the ship by turret 3. Could you do a video on the history of practice loading machines/drill guns on naval vessels?
@@billyrummel388 it’s not sinking right now. They’ve done extensive work on the ship in preparation for it to be moved to dry dock soon. They filled the torpedo blisters with foam to provide bouancy and patched some areas. I don’t live too far from her and hope to see her when she’s moved to Galveston for repairs.
@@eddieeaston791 I know he’s mentioned them in a video before but I haven’t seen any videos on these, their purpose, and their history on ships. Most people walk by the one on Texas and don’t know what it is while others think it’s a saluting gun.
The Bullbus Bow , as now used on large Ocean Liners & Cargo Container ships, uses the competing wave "resonances" to reduce drag ~ increasing speed & efficiency . The same effect is used on Supersonic Aircraft - the "double" Wing Leading Edge " taper".
Those triple expansion engines were the 10th machines listed on the National Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmarks. So whoever chooses to start those engines again would have to have major guts(not the word I'd normally use).
@@colwebbsfmc Two things I want to see happen that will never happen. Texas steaming under her own power, and Constitution at sea with a full set of sails. And guns. And go hunting for pirates.
As a nerd I love listening to Battleship Nerd Ryan explain why designers did what they did on ships like Texas and New Jersey. Ryan's love for these vessels comes through and, dammit, it's amazing.
There was 15 years of separation from the Standard Type design that began with the New York class' successor; the Nevada class, and ending with the Colorado class. 15 years after the Colorado's were completed, the newer design of fast battleships were built. The North Carolina class, The South Dakota class, and the Iowa class. 15 years of design improvement, advancement in technology, and armaments. Plus, carriers were not a fully capable ship class at the time of the New York class creation. Not until further advances in development and discovery post Washington Naval Treaty of 1920. During the inter war period, that would see the need for faster battleships in order to keep up with fleet carriers the like of the Lexington class and Yorktown's. One of the requirements for the newer designs of fast battleships was for it to be able to pass through the Panama Canal. So, comparing the two ships based on design is like comparing apples to oranges. One was built in 1914, the other in the mid to late 1930's. Roughly 19 years of design changes.
My uncle was a Marine stationed on the Texas at the time of WWII. He was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross and Purple Heart from the Battle of Enewetak 18 FEB 1944.
I always thought that the shapes of various battleships were for survivability mainly. So you could have a ship that could take numerous hits and still keep fighting., sort of, function over form.
True for all ships, the question is "Survivability from what?" Threats change over time. The original metal battleships were the Monitor style vessels. USS Puritan was a classic example. They had big guns but not much else. After the invention of the torpedo there was a new threat, the "Torpedo Boat". Not like a WW2 PY Boat but small and fast, often with a single tube in the middle of the bow. A very expensive capital ship with a crew of hundreds was now in danger from a cheap, fast vessel with a small crew. This led to a two fold answer. The gun deck with secondary armaments to shoot at smaller fast moving targets and the development of a new class of vessel, the "Torpedo Boat Destroyer" now known as simply "Destroyer" to protect the capital ships. Ships didn't have a roof on the bridge early on because they need to be able to see attacking aircraft, with the invention of radar ships had roofs added. Similarly armour changed and became more specialised as weapons because more effective. Belt armour against torpedoes is a very different thing to hull and deck armour against 14" shells. And all the time shells and guns were developing.
I can say I've had the privilege of boarding and sleeping in the battleship while I was a cub scout and it is a true little boys dream and is the reason I am interested in military history and similar topics today. Had one distict memory of waking up to the sound of music playing over the radio and the sound emanating through out the ships speakers is an experience I'll never forget.
For those with a deeper interest in this subject, I highly recommend the book U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman. I have it, as well as his other books on other classes of U. S. warships. They are very comprehensive, and fascinating to a serious student of warship development and naval history.
That would be nice to see. They got crowded. How to do it wasn't too hard. Sleep on deck, any deck. I found my replacment watch sleeping next to the starboard hicap. (Where the AFFF was mixed with seawater for fire on the flight deck). MY question would be "How did they feed them all?" When we crossef the Atlantic, we wound up with powdered eggs. USN, 82-88.
When it comes to understanding historic ship design, you have to judge it from an even earlier perspective and move forward. The lower casemates evolved from the Pre-Dreadnaughts and their multiple caliber layout of secondary and tertiary batteries all over the place; compare the Texas with the Armored Cruiser Olympia, and you can see incremental improvements. By the time the Colorado Class was laid down after her, the hull casemates were gone and replaced by a smooth line.
Look at the USS Tennessee (BB-43) class, all secondaries on deck (although it looks like they where thinking of doing a few below deck location). For sure the Colorado shed all of the Dreadnought vestiges.
I'm a Navy veteran and Plank Owner on the USS CALIFORNIA CGN 36 and USS TEXAS CGN 39 back in the 70's. I was in Galveston last week and saw the USS TEXAS in drydock. I've been aboard her only once before about 5 years ago. I can't wait for her to be in the water again. I'll be one of first visitors to visit the ship wherever she ends up.
The forward guns were removed in 1925, along with some of the midship guns, and the gun at the tip of her stern. Six were relocated to the casemate on main deck, and two to the top of the casemate on 01 level. She lost the remaining hull guns in her 1942 refit. The two guns on top of the casemate were either lost in the 1942 refit, or removed in 1941 prior to the refit.
I really like the guy hosting the video. You can tell he loves his job and all things battleship. Would love to get a tour from him on the USS New Jersey or USS Texas.
My Dad was a signalman on Texas in about 1921. Also played on the ship's baseball team. He and Dizzy Dean were raised together in London, AR (and Paul, and Elmer).
I've been impressed and enthralled with battleships since I was about 9 years old. While I understand why the carrier exceeded the battlewagon as the main ship of the line in the navy of today, for sheer damage that can be done and impressiveness through raw power you just cannot beat a battleship. They used to be a nation's pride showing technological prowess as well as just how much sheer firepower can be brought to bear on a target point. It also greatly saddens me how many have met such ignominious ends such as decommissioning and breaking up for scrap steel. More should be saved. These would be so impressive and cool to the people of the nation when they are 2 or 300 years old. I mean, look at the Constitution. Thank GOD people had the foresight to save it.
Until the invention of the space shuttle, battleships were literally the single most expensive thing any nation could own. Save one for a museum, sure, but otherwise, not a lot of sense leaving them lying around.
I find it interesting how when Texas as built they did not really trust electricity and all these new electric things.. and so made manual backups of so much stuff.. like it had both steam and electrical steering, and the turrets have chain pullies where sailors can manually train a turret.. so slow to be useful in battle.. but they could do it.. I also found it curious why Texas and New York stored their shells upside down..
The point-down shell storage made it easier to screw the eyelets into the base of the shells for the (largely manual) hoists and rails that moved them from the magazines to the base of the turrets. I've been fortunate enough to walk through the forward magazines of BB-35, and see the divots on the deck where one of those massive shells fell during loading operations. Talk about brown trousers time.
@BryceKant The Navy still maintains a certain level of manual backups for critical systems aboard any vessel because of the need for redundancy in case of battle damage. Primary steering gears may be hydraulically-driven, but you’d best bet that there is a manually-driven way to crank over the rudders on a warship.
I took a hard hat tour of the Texas several years ago and one of the spaces they took us too was aft steering. In there, there were what I can best describe as old ships wheels (the kind used to steer old sailing ships) lined up about 5 deep and these were the emergency steering. It was amazing to see that in the ship. I think I have a photo of it somewhere as well. Pretty cool stuff.
Regarding not trusting electricity: At the time that Texas was designed, electrification was still in its infancy. Just 30 years beforehand it was something being demonstrated as a neat thing that was only starting to be understood. While Ohm had figured out what is referred to now as Ohms law in the 1820s (one of the most basic and fundamental building blocks of our understanding of electricity) it was initially discredited and then was completely obscure until it was republished in 1879 (again 30 years before Texas was designed). The first larger scale electrification of buildings happened in the 1890s. It wasn't until after WW2 that we had electrification of most of the US.
Sponson mounted guns were a common feature in US battleships until the Washington and London Naval Treaties expired and the twin dual purpose mounts were introduced in the USS North Carolina class (5"/38) and their foreign contemporaries. As most of the older ships came in for refit they were retrofitted with similar weapons. But ships like the American "Standards" kept their hull depressions even after total rebuilds of the superstructure.
If this has been addressed in a previous comment, my apology, but this has answered a question I’ve had for many years. Despite much newer battleships being available, I assume that Texas delivered the big gun support for the D-Day invasion due to its more stable gun platform. A very informative video.
I would love to hear sometime time about how you got into running a battle ship museum. Seems like you grew up into this stuff and really snagged the dream job.
@@jameshigh6481 no doubt he is the perfect guy for the job! Not every museum is lucky enough to run by someone who is passionate and knowledgeable about the subject.
I was able to go view Texas when I was a child. It was fascinating to see it as a young child, and hopefully after she's refurbished I'll one day go back. I also had a good visit to Alabama a few years back and again, what a fascinating visit to see the ships of that era.
I have always been curious how did the crew get to the top of the upper tripod mast and what was up there? Spotting I know but what else? How bad was the sway up there?
Those tripod stilts I suspect are wide enough to allow crew to ladder up from inside.Spotting for ships over the horizon yes and fall of shot also.The ww2 japanese had very high supersructures for the same reason but did impinge on hard manouvering .I imagine they had grab rails inside because movement must be considerable?
As a famous Science Officer from the future would say… “Fascinating” . It’s inspiring to see and hear a young man so knowledgeable and interested in this truly important part of our history. I’ve walked the North Carolina and I hope to visit the Texas some day before I …. Fully retire..
In the late seventies both Iowa and Wisconsin were mothballed at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. My ship, USS Mahan (DDG-42) was there in dry dock for overhaul. One day I was invited by a friend to join an inspection party on Iowa and I jumped at the chance. We spent the entire day onboard going from the bilges to the battle bridge. I even got my picture taken sitting on Roosevelt’s toilet. Later in my career (1987) I was anchored in Augusta Bay Sicily when Missouri steamed in; what a sight. Few ships are as beautiful and impressive as the four Iowa class battleships. Darlington, South Carolina
![จบจนได้ ! | Black Myth: Wukong #007 [ตอนจบ?]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DSqvWndF0sw/mqdefault.jpg)
The Battleship Texas is unique because she's a time capsule. Battleship Texas has survived over 100+ years and over that span she has seen major changes of Naval combat through out war and her shapes and pieces are a reflection of that history.
That's why I think it's important that this battleship is saved and preserved further. She is the last American Dreadnought left.
Unfortunately she is not just the last remaining American Dreadnought, but the last remaining example of a Dreadnought in the entire world. This makes her preservation all the more important as she represents one of the major era's of naval history.
I like your take a lot. I once read a story about an aging general that was thought of as crusty and old fashioned, but the protagonist thought of him as "the first of the new, not the last of the old". Judging from what I have seen in this video, battleship Texas seems to embody that as well.
If it has had a bunch of changes it isn't a time capsule, now is it?
Yup. Not just last American Dreadnought but the last Dreadnought period. Mikasa in Japan is the last Pre- Dreadnought, Texas the Last Dreadnought and North Carolina, Alabama, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Iowa, Wisconsin and Missouri being WW2 Battleships.
Good stuff this video. USS Texas should be a no quibble full restoration if you ask me. The only Dreadnought Battleship left afloat!! (Just)
The Texas looks like a brute. I actually love that look. Very menacing unlike modern warships which hardly have any visible weapons.
Agreed
The next destroyers will be capable of decimating a continent with 200kt nukes using cruise missles. Multiple VLS cells. The forward vls will have 12 cells capable of launching hypersonic cruise missiles
But in her own way texas is awesome and she reeks of history. May she live as long as her namesake!
No argument there. Modern ships undoubtably have firepower and range even battleships cannot match. However I do think there is something valuable in a ship that actually looks like it was made for war. The Russians still see value in this and their ships all bristle with intentionally visible weapons. This design choice is less effective in some ways but fleets are often intended to project power abroad and if so, in my view they should look the part.
Russian ships Still look menacing.
Thumbs up for the unexpected but wholly appropriate use of the word “crenellated”.
Somewhere off in the distance I am hearing Shadiversity scream:
*MACHICOLATIONS!!!*
A E same. I’m glad I’m not the only one to hear that!
Another spelling is crenulated but it's anyone's guess which is right.
@@ProperLogicalDebate perhaps in the US - it's never (AFAIK) spelled with a 'u' anywhere else... Admittedly "everywhere else" mostly adopts British spelling, so this isn't very surprising.
@@athompso99 Noah Webster just doesn't have the same sway as the royal family 😛
The single most important development in the period between the Age of the Dreadnoughts (the 14" guns of Texas made her a "Super Dreadnought") and the Age of the Fast Battleship was the advent of all-metal monoplane combat aircraft. When USS Texas was laid down in 1911 airplanes were toys for wealthy adventurers. The only serious threat to any Dreadnought-type ship in 1911 was another Dreadnought, or a shore battery of Dreadnought-class rifles, or a torpedo boat. Torpedo boats were small, fast (30 knots or more), and highly maneuverable -- too fast and maneuverable for the main-battery guns to counter, hence the need for quick-firing secondaries. The ideal torpedo tactic was to attack at night from very close range, from 1000 yards or less. Countering such attacks was the reason for mounting the secondary battery as low in the hull as practical as being attacked by torpedo boats "under our guns" (i.e. too close for low-angle fire to target) was the nightmare scenario for any battleship captain in 1911. However, the realities of the First World War significantly altered American naval thinking.
While it is true that Austria-Hungary lost a Dreadnought to an Italian torpedo boat, most of the capital ships sunk or gravely damaged in the 1914-1918 war were lost to main-battery fire and not the feared torpedo boat. (The advent of the torpedo-boat destroyer, a small, speedy escort with the endurance to operate with the battleline had much to do with that.) However, the Imperial German Navy introduced a weapon that profoundly affected naval strategy -- the airship. Prior to 1914 scouting for the enemy battle fleet was the job of the cruiser, however, the Germans could use airships for the same scouting role even more effectively. From 10,000 feet the horizon is more than 122 miles away, consequently, the German navy could enjoy excellent intelligence about any British fleet to squadron operating in the North Sea. The problem of German airships prompted a radical solution. Airships flew too high for deck-mounted machine guns or even Ordnance QF Hotchkiss 6 pounder guns on high-angle pedestal mounts. Countering German airships called for fighter aircraft which in turn called for ships that could launch and recover them. Catapult-lanched floatplane fighters were briefly considered, the Americans having demonstrated the feasibility of the technology in 1915, however, conditions in the North Sea complicated the problem enormously. The British solution was an entirely new type of warship -- an aircraft carrier. To that end, an oddball Royal Navy cruiser, HMS Furious, was radically converted. Originally to be armed with two 18-inch rifles in single turrets fore and aft, the biggest guns ever installed on a British warship, Furious was modified while under construction with a flight deck in place of her forward turret. Later, her aft turret was replaced by a second flight deck. In July 1918 HMS Furious launched the first strategic carrier raid in history, attacking the Zeppelin base at Tondern.
Political conditions after the Treaty of Versailles were not conducive to the construction of new battleships. The world's major navies made do with the battleship hulls they already had. According to the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, capital ships under construction were either scrapped or converted to other types, most notably aircraft carriers. The Imperial Japanese Navy converted a battleship (Kaga) and a battlecruiser (Akagi) into aircraft carriers. Likewise, the USN converted two battlecruisers, Lexington and Saratoga, into the largest and fastest aircraft carriers of their day. All of these ships were large, expensive to build, and expensive to operate. Clearly both the American and Japanese admiralties considered them to be important fleet units. In the US Navy Lexington and Saratoga were still considered cruisers, thus their hull designations, CV-2 and CV-3. They were originally seen as long-range scouts for the battleline, essentially the equivalent of the German navy's Zeppelin airships but less vulnerable to adverse weather and AAA fire. (The USN also experimented with four highly advanced Zeppelin-type airships as fleet scouts, two of them, USS Akron and USS Macon, carried their own parasite defensive fighters. Three of the four crashed due to storms with heavy loss of life, and none were shown to be effective scouts when opposed by carrier-borne fighters.) The presence of aircraft carriers in possible enemy fleets made it imperative that battleship secondary armament had to be dual-purpose, first as high-angle open mounts with wide firing arcs, later in protected turrets.
The post-war "battleship holiday" was ended by the London Naval Treaty of 1930. The major navies needed to build new battleships to augment and replace their aging Dreadnought-type ships. Fleet exercises conducted by the USN showed that the 20-knot speed of America's standard battleships was too slow to take full advantage of naval airpower, consequently, the new battleship classes would need greater speed, even at the expense of gun-platform stability. Consequently, sponson-mounted secondaries were not even considered in the new designs. The new ships would be long and lean rather than short and tubby -- more like well-protected battlecruisers than Dreadnoughts. Secondaries would be mounted high in the ship for greater sky arcs. Low-angle protection would be a matter for the escorting destroyers.
Wow, thanks for a really thorough explanation!
Brilliant Reply. Thank you for that. Very insightful.
Nice explanation buddy
Excellent review. It's called iterative design. No one thing immediately pops out. The carrier and it's impact on battleships was seen early on. The US built it's new ships and the Japanese made incredible refits of the excellent battlecruisers of the Kongo class. The Royal Navy never built a true carrier escort battleship until after the war.
You done talking yet??
Texas is representative of a W.W. #1 design with casement mounted secondary batteries whereas New Jersey represents a W.W.#2 design of turreted 5" 38 cal. dual purpose secondary batteries. Glad to see the evolvement of naval battleship design from one war to the next.
Excellent point. There were several decades of advancement between the New Yorks and the Iowas.
@@GoldensRLife They are good comparisons though. Compare WW1 Badass to WW2 Badass and all the advancements between. BTW, if you haven't heard of him, TheFatElectrician here on YT has videos on the Texas and two of the Iowa's and possibly a general video on the Iowa's. They're short and amusing with plenty of colorful euphemisms.
@@jameskee2412 it's never a warcrime the first time 😂
@@adenkyramud5005 It's only a war crime if there's Evidence
You can really see the progression of battleship technology in these ships. The Texas being a dreadnought battleship shows the clear leap towards using the main battery as a preferred weapon system than the secondary battery from the pre dreadnought eras though you still see many of the clear design philosophies held over from the pre dreadnought era. (The large contingent of casemate secondaries, bow shape, and underwater torpedo tubes) (not 100% sure if Texas still has those)
You don’t see the newer battleships for a number of years after the New York class, with the flared bow, more advanced gunnery leading to a substantially smaller focus on secondary guns as they were phased out for dual purpose secondary/AA guns as aircraft were more of a threat than ever.
Really interesting in all respects, lovely ship!
To me the weirdest part of her design is the midships turret. It makes her look as if the Navy had an extra battleship turret laying around and didn't know where to put it.
25% more firepower in a broadside and 50% more firepower when running from the enemy. If you have to run you'll be zigzagging and can bring the three turrets to bear while a pursuing capital ship only has the two front turrets to shoot at you.
Originally the ships, as built, had three aft turrets, only after the refit had the rear tower been moved behind the third turret effectively making it a AB-P-XY instead of an AB-XYZ layout.
@@olegjakovljev5777 Thanks.
the problem with soo may turrets in ships of this era, is the magazines directly below each turret, that makes a ship with a lot of vulnerable magazines. Something they figured out later down the road.
USS Texas would ironically be the last "Turret Farm" Battleship since the follow on Class the Nevada's introduced Triple Turrets allowing the same number of guns as Texas without the Extra Turret. Before that Battlehips had tons of turrets- just look at the Wyoming Class.
She was the largest battleship afloat when she entered service. She's neither short nor dumpy. She was literally state of the art at the time.
Uh-huh. A hundred years ago. Now, and in comparison to late ww2 battle ships and modern ship shes short and dumpy
@@AceofCrazy89 Comparing apples and oranges. The titanic was short and dumpy compared to it's contemporary counterparts. The Empire State Building is dwarfed by today's mega skyscrapers. So what? Your historical perspective sucks, my friend.
USS Texas DD-35 was a New York-class battleship, launched May 18, 1912 and commissioned on March 12, 1914. She was one of the baddest ships in the fleet in her time. There are many of us who value our history. These ships protected our nation in their time and should be honored for that. OK, maybe my ten years of Navy service do color my opinion just a bit but I feel a need to respect those that came before me. I served on one ship from WWII and two more from the 1960s. The lessons learned from those WWI & WWII ships were incorporated in the ships that followed them, to the benefit of myself and my shipmates.
The true largest battleship ever made was yamato
@@disbigchougas3113 Never said any different.
As a native Houstonian, I recall visiting her numerous times over the years. Sitting on the gun turrets and turning the wheels looking through the sights imagining I was shooting at enemy aircraft is only one of my childhood memories. She always had a certain "smell" below decks that reminded me of an old ship and my imagination would drift to an earlier time when she was in fighting trim and her sailors were so very proud to serve on her. I walked the same spaces as those young sailors who fought on her many years earlier and could only wonder what they were thinking. She served in WW1 and WW2 and participated in the D-Day invasion of France. What a great old ship launched 108 years ago this year and I'm glad the State of Texas is taking care of her now.
Well, hopefully will be. The vote in favor of preservation was 15 years ago and the ship still hasn't made it into a drydock. :D "August 2022" is the most recent update I've seen.
I did exactly as you..pretending to shoot down enemy planes.
I posted elsewhere that there is a picture of me on one of those anti-aircraft guns. After my father died in January I found a picture of him as a boy sitting on that same gun mount.
It was a special moment.
@@IstasPumaNevada She's in drydock now.
I remember when you could turn the wheels on the 5-inch guns, AA guns and climb inside the main gun turrets.
Maybe when she is moved we can go down there more often, the state park situation being rediculously impossibly to get admission in recent years due to over booking of people looking to go to a nice land park, as the adjacent battleground is.
About the smell, I remember going to the Lexington, on a winter morning in '96, when it actually froze in Corpus Christi, and it was so hot from only the lighting that it was dificult to imagine being in action in the tropics and not have the crew falling out from the heat.
I have a piece from the Battleship Texas that is cut into the shape of Texas and is dated and numbered. It came with my special edition Battleship Texas 1911 pistol, from years ago when they were raising money. It’s a beautiful pistol with engravings and inlays, and with a piece of the ship itself included it makes for a neat collectors piece for a native Houstonian like myself. I’ve been to the museum and seen the ship a couple times over the years and I think it’s a really neat piece of history.
I just watched a video on the work being done on the Texas. I wondered if they had a shop. Yes they do. They sell a 3” Texas made from the battleships steel. I wanted one but it’s $150. Their store merchandise goes to help fund the work but I can’t justify paying $150 for a 1/4 to 3/8 inch thick Texas.
@@frankedgar6694 Ya, I believe that’s about the same size my piece is. Honestly I couldn’t justify spending $150 on that either so I’m glad mine at least came with a pistol. I could maybe see someone justifying it if it was like $40-$50, which is still a lot considering what it is, but definitely not $150 so I don’t blame you.
would be nice if they did that again maybe using wood as grip.. 1911 pistol and 1912 battleship!
@@treyriver5676 It’s got wood grips that have a star engraved in each of them but that’s it if I remember correctly. It’s also not wood from the ship because I don’t think there was any wood on the ship lol.
I know a lot of people might have problem finding an extra $150 lying around for something like this - but I figure that's about 9 or 10 meals at Whataburger (maybe less if you like to splurge) - and where are those meals now?@@frankedgar6694
I know it's probably actually a youtube engagement thing but it always amuses me when Ryan asks the follow-up questions like we're a school group on a field trip. Shows his museum educator roots and genuine care for getting people to really connect to these artifacts on a personal level.
Except that he Seems to be out of breath, constantly. Medical issue there??
@@scottski51 just the humidity in Texas
Are you sure he’s not just throwing battleship shade?
Thank you so much for highlighting our old, beautiful Battleship. She's the last of the New York class Dreadnoughts. And she needs our help BADLY. She needs a lot of work inside and out. She's currently scheduled to be towed to the Port of Galveston for drydock repairs. Then, most likely to be relocated to a new birth to be determined. I was lucky enough to perform some volunteer electrical work on her a few years ago. And, I hope to be able to do so again. Please consider making a donation for the old lady. She served us and her Crews well. We owe it to her and the memories and honor of her crews. Thanks for reading my post.
Long Live TEXAS!!!!!
I worked in a Navy shipyard for 18 years. When there are multiple ways to fulfill a design requirement the solution picked was often the one with the loudest advocate.
Or the cheapest budget.
@@stevenbaker8184 this wins EVERY time.
I also worked in a naval shipyard for 19 years as a welder apprentice, WG10, high pressure pipe welder....and GS series. Your statement is totally true.
Excellent job. Don’t forget that the width of our ships was also driven by the width of the locks of the Panama Canal
Yup, clearance of 8” per side on an Iowa class
To this day, that configuration is known as "Panamax" and even today's ships of any type, must adhere to that configuration.
i think it comes down to the tech and doctrine of the day.
you got to remember the texas was completed in 1912 which means she was designed by people that were born in the late 1800's and taught marine engineering by people who designed ships that had only sails. not only that, you got to wonder how old the brass was that signed off on everything. these guys probably viewed naval warfare differently to now. point is, no wonder texas had gun ports, that's what worked then.
it's interesting to think that we'd consider a battleship a bit of a waste of time to build now. but that's only because we can put 30 missiles through a portal and into some admirals bowl of soup from like 5000kms away with the push of a button and enjoy a caramel frappuccino while we wait.
Ah, so you're saying "War" is a Yuppie thing now?
@@davidb6576 no they're saying it's far more hands off than it used to be, no need for crews on deck of battleships when a sub or silo or drone can just pop out a targeted missile strike wherever they want to
1912 is the launching. Construction continued to 10 March 1912 with the last hull plate was installed. Even after the 12 March 1914 commission, construction still continued until 23 March at Norfolk Navy Yard. Ater Norfolk, BB35 went to the New York Navy Yard for further work until late April-early My 1914
I think you are underestimating how much science was involved in the design of these ships. Heck, a good 75% of modern engineering is based on science that was well known in the 1900s. For instance, consider how insanely large the Great Eastern was for it's time, still bigger than USS Texas while being build 55 years earlier. It was not technology that was limiting the size of later constructions, but more the lack of perceived need to go that big (with the funding available).
Also the New York class was more towards the end of super-dreadnought 2nd generation. She's roughly contemporary with the Queen Elizabeth's, who where contending for the most technologically capable battleships of WW1.
Casemates had some considerable advantages as a design, and while it's drawbacks where known, they where considered subservient to the benefit of adding more guns on a certain displacements with the experience at the time. Moving over to deck-level casemates, or even turret mounted secondary guns, where always at the cost of less guns or less protection because of how it would make the ships more top-heavy.
yes although indeed a lot of science went into the naval designs at the time, there was also a lot of preconception and bias towards what ships should be like, and the old guard "Battleship Admirals" had a lot of sway on naval design and were quite conservative. This is why it took so long for archaic features to disappear like rigged masts, ram bows, flying bridges and prow casemates
If I remember correctly, when launched in 1914, she had a ‘bird cage’ mast, replaced in I believe 1927 at Norfolk Naval Yard. She was also the first battleship to launch a plane. 😁
You are correct, she had 2 lattice masts with small fighting tops like the later Standard battleships. But the New Yorks were apparently too small for two full sized tripod masts with the large fighting tops (I have a book on USS Texas that mentions this). So New York and Texas were refitted with one tripod mast and the backup director mounted low behind the third turret.
That would be an interesting topic. What exactly was in those huge fighting tops that US battleships got in the 30s? I know they were the main directors, I just wonder what the insides looked like. They always look precarious to me, like they might be too heavy for the tripods (they were too heavy for the lattice masts, there was one that collapsed which is why the Navy went to the tripods, a conversion that wasn't complete by Pearl Harbor).
Inn addition to the first plane launched by a battleship, the Texas was also the ship that fired the first American shots of WWI and was the ship during Operation Torch in 1942 that Eisenhower gave the "Voice of Freedom" speech imploring the Vichy French not to fire on Americans. This beautiful ship reeks of history.
And one of the first ships to have radar
Not weird, she's beautiful to those of us who love her.
Dont really like "dumpy" either
She’s WEIRD
You can like something and it still be weird.
I have visited the Texas battleship! She is beautiful! Has a lot of history on the old gal!
It's fun exploring the Battleship Texas!!! Fans are needed during the summertime!!!
Battleship Texas is, I believe, the last floating dreadnought-era battleship in existence. If you compare her design and lines to other dreadnought-era ships she fits in well. She was retrofitted a great deal (most apparent are the masts that were replaced from her original ones) and served during WWII when bigger, more modern battleships were being developed. As she is pretty much the last example of her kind she does look strange compared to modern battleships, but not to her contemporaries.
"...the designers of Texas called, the gun deck...like it's a fricken 1700s sailing ship." I almost died laughing.
Honestly I never thought of the length to beam ratio having an affect on gunnery. I hope the devs of Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts watch this channel. I would love to see them add a length to beam slider in the in game shipyard. A choice between a less hydrodynamic yet stable gun platform, a fast and more nimble yet rocky platform, or a balance somewhere in between.
A lot more goes into designing a gunnery platform than that. Much of it has to do with the relative position center of mass vs center of buoyancy. Sure, the length to beam ratio plays a part, but it has much more to do with speed vs maneuverability.
I absolutely love this channel and Ryan's videos, but if you want indepth videos on ship design (on ships that aren't the New Jersey), check out drachinifel: m.th-cam.com/video/fkRJxgYgTVA/w-d-xo.html
I'm waiting for their crossover event.
If you like learning that sort of thing, check out drachinifel as well. He's a naval historian, and typically covers much broader topics (like the development of naval armor)
@@meh12345HEY I heard several times that the Russians/Soviets avoided superfiring turrets on battleships almost solely because of the fact that it raises the center of mass and thus would be a detritment to seakeeping in icy conditions (which is something they were understandably concerned about).
No idea if it's true though, I'm no expert.
@@michaireneuszjakubowski5289More or less, yes. It adds mass higher up, but also adds surfaces higher up upon which snow can accumulate, the real problem in the equation being snow because water is heavy. Drachinifel talks about it in one of his videos, not sure which off the top of my head though.
@@saturn5mtw567 Drach is coming to the US in April, and has apparently been in touch with Ryan for one or possibly more joint videos while he’s here. Keep an eye out for earthquakes, tsunamis, and strange stellar phenomena resulting from the singularity of greatness that will occur.
If I remember correctly, Texas was the first ship equipped with radar. It was a tiny room and was the only place on the ship with air conditioning. I also seem to remember those "gun decks" being a later addition to the ship.
Believe New York was first.
Now that, I find humorous, your reference to the "small air-conditioned radar room." I was assigned as an Electronics Tech, to the Data Systems School at Mare Island, in Vallejo, California in 1969. None of us knew about it at that time, but when we went to our assigned ships, we found that all of the computer and much of the radio gear was cooled to 68-72 degrees. A chilled water system was plumbed from the engine room up to heat exchangers in the equipment. Some of the Machinist Mates and Enginemen would come up to visit occasionally to get out of their shops that were typically running closer to 120 -140 degrees when we were in the Tokin Gulf, off the Vietnam coast.
Texas and her sister ships were fitted with radar in December 1938.
HMS Saltburn was fitted with a prototype radar in 1936. HMS Sheffield had the kind of radar that Texas and New York had by August 1938.
Crazy to think that warships all the way up to the early 20th C still had “Gun decks” in them similarly to their ancestors hundreds of years before!
If the ship had smooth sides, she would be longer.
Well if you think about it, not that crazy. HMS Warrior was the first full iron hulled ship, she was launched in 1860, and she launched in a world of wooden ships-of-the-line. Only 45 years later, the HMS Dreadnought was launched. The Iowas are almost 80 years old, and the Enterprise, the first nuclear carrier, was built 60 years ago. Texas was closer to the age of sail than we are to the first CVN.
Imagine if they put all the heads on a retained Poop Deck.
@@magisterrleth3129 Yup. Abrams Main Battle Tanks entered service in the late 70's which is now over 40 years ago. the F-15 is about to turn 50. The B-52 will be turning 70
As stated they were to be used against torpedo boats.
I've visited the Texas several times and I didn't know any of this. Very interesting. I'm proud of the ship that bears my home state's name and hope she lasts for a hundred more years.
Being a boomer ('47) living in Pasadena, Texas, south of Houston, The Battleship Texas has always been a part of my life. In the 60's we could go through the ship top to bottom, even down in shaft alley and see the amazing engines. It's in terrible condition now and I hope it can be refurbished and painted again soon. It was last done in the late 80's I believe. Naval warfare has changed many times since the turn of the 20th century and the Texas is a true time capsule worth keeping.
Thank you for this great video.
I've been to a fair number of museum ships, but as a native Houstonian, visiting multiple time over my life, BB35 is my favorite, The various carriers are my second favorites.
Pity they didn't save the Cabot..
Ever visit the Lexington in CC?
@@shadowgarr7649 I've been to the Lexington, Midway, and Intrepid, from a carrier perspective. As a young child, I stood beside the Coral Sea while she was still commissioned (late sixties?) in Houston but doubt we boarded her.
@@kncannon, I’m a native Houstonian, too. I have been to the Texas on San Jacinto Day.
No carrier had the WW2 battle history of the Enterprise, so it was scraped. It would have been the only classic straight deck carrier full of guns and not modernize like the other carriers now on display.
Having been born in Houston, and spent many Sundays at the old San Jacinto Inn right next to Texas’ berth, I find the ship to be absolutely beautiful. New Jersey is also beautiful, but it’s from 30 years later.
Nah new jersey is too sleek, a battleship sould be a solid looking thing, unlike the iowas
I miss the San Jacinto Inn. I have no idea why it closed. The building was still there in 2007. Place had no menu. Waiters came to your table with what they had that day and it was always good. I think you could opt out of the daily menu and they would bring you fried chicken or something, but why would you go there if you didn't want shrimp and fish?
@@Bacopa68 And the biscuits!
HMS Nelson & HMS Rodney are definitely in the "weird" category, with all three gun turrets forward of the superstructure, to help them comply with the Washington Naval Treaty displacement limits.
They were originally laid-down as super Battlecruisers over 900 feet long mounting 5 turrets. The ships were basically cut short after the superstructure loosing a third of their length and weight. I have a model of Rodney and when looking at it can see an almost cut and patch design.
@@briansearles4473 that's...wow. Those are (well, were) some BIG plans.
@@briansearles4473 I'm sorry, but...no, they definitely were not. The Nelsons were always intended to have three turrets mounting 16-inch guns, and they were always intended to be battleships, complying with the restrictions of the Washington Naval Treaty. They were laid down as such. I have no idea where you got that information from, but it's very wrong, I'm afraid. The Nelsons were an adaptation of the N3 design, but with smaller guns (16 inch rather than 18 inch), a different turret placement and so on.
Britain did come to close to building the G3-class "battlecruisers", and a couple of them may even have been laid down, though there's no evidence to confirm it. The G3's would've been 856 feet long, carrying nine 16 inch guns, capable of 32 knots and carrying thicker armour than any battleship afloat (including the American Colorados, Britsh Queen Elizabeths and Japanese Nagatos). The Washington Naval Treaty meant the cancellation of the G3's, preventing a second naval arms race in the 20th century between Britain and the United States.
Given that the American Lexington and South Dakota-class ships were considerably inferior to the British G3 and N3 designs, that was probably a good thing for the US.
@@Cailus3542 If memory serves, the G3s were finalized and funded, but not yet laid down when the WNT talks started.
@@briansearles4473 The Nelsons were G3 battlecruisers with their engine power mutilated to meet the 35,000 tons restrictions of the Treaty. At the time the Royal Navy referred to them as 'Cherry Tree Ships.' Cut down by Washington, of course.
“While ships a generation or two older might have been done by gut feeling and with artistic license…”
> Looks nervously at Drach’s French Pre-Dreadnaughts video
When hotels went to war…
Ah, the U.S.S. Texas... shares a name with my home state, made one of the best gun platforms of the war for her design, and really her design makes her better! Her curves, her edges, her guns... Really, it's not always about how smooth she is, but about what sets her off from others around her and what makes her beautiful. That's the U.S.S. Texas for you, folks, a real 'beaut.
I appreciate your explanation of the design of the bow. Most of the other books I've read that talk about it say that it was a leftover from the days of ramming, which seemed silly, but not quite impossible. Nice to know that there was some actual science involved there.
The cruiser Olympia isn't that much older than the Texas bu she got the old school ram bow. It very cool
Think of it like a proto-bulbus bow that most modern ships have now. Water tank experiments definitely were helping shape hull forms into more hydrodynamic shapes. There is an interesting video for the Yamato's bulbus bow that goes more indepth with this concept.
I can't completely explain it, but there are similar bows on modern supertankers.
Something to do with stopping the hull riding up on the bow wave.
Does that make sense?
Drachinifel's video on hull form does a great job of explaining stability, why it matters, and how to design a stable ship.
Who ?
@@wst8340 Uh, try searching for him here on TH-cam
Probably out of breath from someone hearing him call our Grand Ol' Lady "dumpy" and having to run for his life during takes.
I was able to visit the Texas back in 1999. Awesome to see it. But, the mosquitos were so bad below deck, I had to retreat before I could see the engine room. Glad they are going to save her.
Some of this relates to the changing role of the battleship. In WWI, they were still very much the capital ships of any fleet. They were expected to engage other ships in decisive battles. Later on, once aircraft carriers became more powerful and important, battleships became go to platforms for shore bombardment.
Most people do not know that the Battleship Texas fired the highest amount of the main guns (14 inch) in battle in the world during WW2.
She also fired an impressive number of 5 inch, considering she only had 6 left by then.
True. Texas never engaged in a real naval battle, but she did participate in numerous shore bombardments.
@@Cailus3542
For the time, she and other older battleships we're the perfect invasion gun platforms. I can't remember the name of the captain during the Normandy Invasion, but he had one side of the ship partially flooded to allow her main guns a steeper angle to increase, the range of her shells to knock out tanks and fortified emplacements.
Fun fact: when you come on board Texas, you'll see the German 240mm shell that struck her during a running gun battle with German artillery at the invasion of Cherbourg, but miraculously didn't detonate.
While that might be true for US battleships I doubt it holds true for all battleships. As HMS King George V and HMS Duke of York both engaged battleships of the Kriegsman (KMS Bismarck and KMS Scharnhorst) in direct surface combat and both of those ships also had a 10 gun broadside.
Or that she flooded part of the ship so she could fire farther inland at D-Day to support ground troops.
Her service history proves the design of the majestic lady was perfect!!!
As a local to the Houston area I've been the ship dozens of times in my life, starting when I was small boy with my Grandfather who was a naval doctor in WWII on ship. She's a gem for sure and hopefully will last another 100 years after some restoration. Can't wait to take my kids back to see her in her new glory.
Your support from the Battleship New Jersey, for the Battleship Texas is GREATLY appreciated. We are all brothers in arms even though we bicker among ourselves in peacetime. Kind of like a family with brothers who fight among themselves all the time, God be with whoever decides to fight the brothers! Thank you New Jersey! Cheers from Texas!
I love when a machine has physical features that stand out like that. There is something elegant to being able to pint all guns forward and fire at a target under pursuit. I love warship evolution and the way the dreadnaught classes were designed as a weapon of mass destruction.
Being from Texas, and a multi-time tourer of said beauty, we just recently got to tour Jersey in Camden- we love what you are doing back north, and greatly appreciate your support for our Southern Belle!
How about the USS Texas had Torpedo Tubes in her original configuration? How ships that served over longer time frames like Texas and New Jersey had new and different technology added and removed from them.
Torpedo tubes on battleships are very interesting yet I can never find anything on them.
@@noahlinden9641 German BBs historically had them, but I can’t think of any other countries using them.
@@Manticore2026 Most countries that operated battleships, both pre- and post-Dreadnought, had torpedo tubes on them for a while there. Even Dreadnought herself had a few torpedo tubes! Eventually, though, most navies realized that torpedoes on battleships aren't a particularly good idea; While they pack a heck of a punch, ideally you want a battleship to keep the range open so it can use its main battery to the fullest effect, and if you aren't using the tubes they're just massive targets filled with lots of explosives. This is also why most countries ended up mostly only putting torpedo tubes on destroyers or smaller ships; While they're a big vulnerable target, a ship that small can't pack very much armor anyway, and even if the tubes go up, at least it was a (relatively speaking) small and cheap destroyer or something rather than a huge expensive battleship.
@@Manticore2026 HMS Rodney launched torpedoes at the Bismarck during her sinking.
@@noahlinden9641 Almost all the capital ships at Jutland had torpedo tubes.
They were mostly discarded inter-war as ineffective and a liability (a hole in your hull where you want strength).
The US navy went a step further and abandoned torpedoes form new build cruisers (An explosion hazard), saved weight used for more guns, armour and propulsion.
The only confirmed Battleship torpedo hit I've read about is HMS Rodney on an immobile and sinking Bismarck.
A task that could have been delegated to a destroyer or Cruiser.
Loved Ryan's comment about the gun deck being reminiscent of the 1700's. The first time I toured the Texas and saw the secondary battery in the deck house, it was like touring a warship from the age of sail. I think I even bumped my head on the low ceilings.
In my opinion each incremental change was thought through thoroughly. Navies were known to be conservative and resistant to change so any change that made it to actual build had gone through the procurement equivalent of the Spanish inquisition.
One thing I think about with the 5" guns mounted on the "gun deck" is that there is a lower center of gravity. The higher the center of gravity, the more the ship rolls and makes the point of turning turtle much less.
The casement mounted secondaries are also cheaper and lighter than turret mounted secondaries.
The critical reason for moving to turret mounted secondaries was the need for dual purpose guns. The use of the secondary battery as heavy anti-aircraft guns was more important than the anti-surface role.
The lower position of the casement mounted guns meant they often couldn't be used in even moderate seas.
Also they were far more vulnerable to hits which might cause ammunition explosions or fires. Plus they allowed water to enter the ship which lowered habitablity quite a lot.
There were quite a few drawbacks to casements, which is why they were discontinued in later designs, and plated over in older designs.
If I Recall Correctly, USS Texas was originally built with 21 (!) 5 inch guns in her secondary battery. Several were sacrificed early on, but when they were moved up to the deck house only six were kept. Top weight was probably a strong consideration.
@@ericbowen650 While this was happening, fleet destroyers grew to 1,500 - 2,000 tons, and mounted similar calibre guns to the battleship secondary.
So that secondary battery could focus more on knocking down aeroplanes, while a destroyer screen took on enemy torpedo capability.
I was going to make the point tht the 2ndary battery was mounted in casemates spaced around the hull of the ship...glad to see you cover that.
Marvelous some who knows about casements. I built a model of the Arizona in 1966. Iowa’s have a fatter stem than battleships around WW1
This is the only museum TH-cam channel I watch. Your content is fantastic, and BB New Jersey should be proud to have you as a curator.
The obvious, very US navy, feature that's been replaced is the cage mast. A fascinating mathematical / engineering invention.
I do wonder how the crew enjoyed ascending and working at height in them.
The cage masts proved faulty after some came crashing down after going through storms. The implementation of bigger and heavier fire control sighting equipment and radar arrays necessitated the change to sturdier tripod masts.
@@davidkaminski615 Thanks David, it sounds like a similar upgrade journey that led the Royal Navy to the "Queen Anne's Mansion" superstructure.
I've wondered sometimes if the spotters who worked at the top of the tripod received anything like hazard pay for having to work there. I suspect not, though. Great view if no one's shooting at you, but I'd be nervous about a hit to the superstructure making that thing go "timber" if I had to work up there.
You do a great job. I'm an old Vietnam War Army soldier who enjoys your talks. Was in the MRF in 69, supported by the USS Benewah near Dong Tam for a time
As far as the speed goes, that never really hurt the standard battleships. Battleships in general were used pretty defensively by everybody, the only things they really couldn't do was keep up with a carrier group in a hurry. And that's not bad when you consider that the #1 deciding factor of their design was keeping a modest budget.
Depends, the English Revenge-class BBs were built after the Queen Elizabeth-class but were used far less extensively because they took so long to get anywhere (20kts vs 25kts sea speed).
@@waverleyjournalise5757Fair point. But part of the issue is that they already have faster ships, why use the Revenges? American standard ships were intentionally designed to avoid that issue, by deciding on a standard speed of 21 knots. That way, Congress can tell the Navy they only get two ships per class, but every preceding class can operate with even the most modern units. And then we realized that speed might be important in the vast expanse of the Pacific, and so speed became priority #1, and the result is a ship that's as cheap with her armament and and armor as the last classes were with their machinery, but she's 12 knots faster.
I tend to disagree. The slow speed of the Standards rendered them virtually obsolete in WW2, unlike the faster Queen Elizabeths and Nelsons, which were just about fast enough to be viable against modern battleships. The slow speed of the Standards made sense in the 1910's, particularly after the Battle of Jutland, but speed became far more important in later years.
That's one of many reasons why the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was such a mistake. They attacked a fleet which would've been virtually useless in the Pacific War that was about to unfold.
As their use evolved fast battleships became huge anti aircraft batteries to protect the carriers and the older standard battleships were used for shore bombardment. The battle of Surigao Strait was a exception.
@@BigTrain175 The Pacific War as a whole was an exception. In the more confined waters around Europe, fast battleships of all kinds were used more frequently in an offensive role against surface shipping. People tend to hook onto the "carriers made battleships obsolete in WW2" line, when it isn't actually true. It was the advent of jet aircraft that made battleships obsolete.
The rare use of battleships in the Pacific was due to a combination of factors. Most of the American fleet was knocked out on day one, obviously, or else they would've been deployed (and likely sunk by carrier aircraft). Beyond that, Japanese strategic doctrine meant that the Japanese held back their battleships for a "decisive battle" that never came. The vast waters of the Pacific also meant that interception of enemy surface forces was unlikely. It did nearly happen in 1945, when the French fast battleship Richelieu was hunting the Japanese cruiser Takao, but a British destroyer squadron sunk it before the intercept happened. It also happened at Leyte Gulf, but again, exception.
Contrast that to the Atlantic, Med and North Sea. Bismarck and Scharnhorst were sunk by British battleships, while Tirpitz was trapped in Norway for fear of encountering them. Battleships saw heavy use in the Med, most particularly at Cape Matapan. The British had fleet carriers and used them quite effectively (Taranto, for instance), but in those theatres, heavy ships like battleships and cruisers were still critical.
The 6.1 inch 51 caliber gun system were called Casement gun ports and covered a good amount of open area for the guns to target smaller ships, even Destroyer’s.
Texas has a practice loading machine located on the port side of the ship by turret 3. Could you do a video on the history of practice loading machines/drill guns on naval vessels?
I'd like to see Ryan operate the practice machine, turn in a time for the leaderboard :)
Pretty sure they did already, New Jersey has a couple
You can no longer go on the ship because they’re moving it because it’s sinking
@@billyrummel388 it’s not sinking right now. They’ve done extensive work on the ship in preparation for it to be moved to dry dock soon. They filled the torpedo blisters with foam to provide bouancy and patched some areas. I don’t live too far from her and hope to see her when she’s moved to Galveston for repairs.
@@eddieeaston791 I know he’s mentioned them in a video before but I haven’t seen any videos on these, their purpose, and their history on ships. Most people walk by the one on Texas and don’t know what it is while others think it’s a saluting gun.
The Bullbus Bow , as now used on large Ocean Liners & Cargo Container ships, uses the competing wave "resonances" to reduce drag ~ increasing speed & efficiency . The same effect is used on Supersonic Aircraft - the "double" Wing Leading Edge " taper".
Looking forward to your discussion of the engines!
for her age , she is a magnificent piece of art , absolutely timeless in my opinion
Original Texas power plant was vertical triple expansion. Theoretically, she could still be fired up if the piping hasn’t rusted away.
There is a LOT of rust. A LOT.
That said, I'd pay real money to see it happen.
Those triple expansion engines were the 10th machines listed on the National Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmarks. So whoever chooses to start those engines again would have to have major guts(not the word I'd normally use).
I too wish to see her steam again.
@@colwebbsfmc Two things I want to see happen that will never happen. Texas steaming under her own power, and Constitution at sea with a full set of sails. And guns. And go hunting for pirates.
Thanks for answering this question and others that I have wondered about for decades. Great story !
If I remember correctly, Texas is one of a select few (or only) battleship left today that fought on the front lines of both world wars.
As a nerd I love listening to Battleship Nerd Ryan explain why designers did what they did on ships like Texas and New Jersey.
Ryan's love for these vessels comes through and, dammit, it's amazing.
There was 15 years of separation from the Standard Type design that began with the New York class' successor; the Nevada class, and ending with the Colorado class.
15 years after the Colorado's were completed, the newer design of fast battleships were built. The North Carolina class, The South Dakota class, and the Iowa class. 15 years of design improvement, advancement in technology, and armaments.
Plus, carriers were not a fully capable ship class at the time of the New York class creation. Not until further advances in development and discovery post Washington Naval Treaty of 1920.
During the inter war period, that would see the need for faster battleships in order to keep up with fleet carriers the like of the Lexington class and Yorktown's. One of the requirements for the newer designs of fast battleships was for it to be able to pass through the Panama Canal.
So, comparing the two ships based on design is like comparing apples to oranges. One was built in 1914, the other in the mid to late 1930's. Roughly 19 years of design changes.
and a little war in between ;)
My uncle was a Marine stationed on the Texas at the time of WWII. He was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross and Purple Heart from the Battle of Enewetak 18 FEB 1944.
I always thought that the shapes of various battleships were for survivability mainly. So you could have a ship that could take numerous hits and still keep fighting., sort of, function over form.
True for all ships, the question is "Survivability from what?" Threats change over time. The original metal battleships were the Monitor style vessels. USS Puritan was a classic example. They had big guns but not much else. After the invention of the torpedo there was a new threat, the "Torpedo Boat". Not like a WW2 PY Boat but small and fast, often with a single tube in the middle of the bow. A very expensive capital ship with a crew of hundreds was now in danger from a cheap, fast vessel with a small crew.
This led to a two fold answer. The gun deck with secondary armaments to shoot at smaller fast moving targets and the development of a new class of vessel, the "Torpedo Boat Destroyer" now known as simply "Destroyer" to protect the capital ships. Ships didn't have a roof on the bridge early on because they need to be able to see attacking aircraft, with the invention of radar ships had roofs added.
Similarly armour changed and became more specialised as weapons because more effective. Belt armour against torpedoes is a very different thing to hull and deck armour against 14" shells. And all the time shells and guns were developing.
I can say I've had the privilege of boarding and sleeping in the battleship while I was a cub scout and it is a true little boys dream and is the reason I am interested in military history and similar topics today. Had one distict memory of waking up to the sound of music playing over the radio and the sound emanating through out the ships speakers is an experience I'll never forget.
I think an intriguing design would be the oversized tripod mast, very common for modernisation era eg. Uss Pensacola.
For those with a deeper interest in this subject, I highly recommend the book U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman. I have it, as well as his other books on other classes of U. S. warships. They are very comprehensive, and fascinating to a serious student of warship development and naval history.
I would love to see a video on Operation Magic Carpet and how you would cram several hundred soldiers onto an already full battleship.
That would be nice to see. They got crowded. How to do it wasn't too hard. Sleep on deck, any deck. I found my replacment watch sleeping next to the starboard hicap. (Where the AFFF was mixed with seawater for fire on the flight deck). MY question would be "How did they feed them all?" When we crossef the Atlantic, we wound up with powdered eggs. USN, 82-88.
I think its the most aggressive looking and fits the “Don’t mess with Texas” saying perfectly. I like it
The Engineers knew their trade . The ships look good and proved their value during both world wars
I very much appreciate your coverage of Battleship Texas, thank you!
When it comes to understanding historic ship design, you have to judge it from an even earlier perspective and move forward. The lower casemates evolved from the Pre-Dreadnaughts and their multiple caliber layout of secondary and tertiary batteries all over the place; compare the Texas with the Armored Cruiser Olympia, and you can see incremental improvements. By the time the Colorado Class was laid down after her, the hull casemates were gone and replaced by a smooth line.
Look at the USS Tennessee (BB-43) class, all secondaries on deck (although it looks like they where thinking of doing a few below deck location). For sure the Colorado shed all of the Dreadnought vestiges.
I'm a Navy veteran and Plank Owner on the USS CALIFORNIA CGN 36 and USS TEXAS CGN 39 back in the 70's. I was in Galveston last week and saw the USS TEXAS in drydock. I've been aboard her only once before about 5 years ago. I can't wait for her to be in the water again. I'll be one of first visitors to visit the ship wherever she ends up.
My guess is they were for her casemates that were removed in the (I think) 1942 refit
The forward guns were removed in 1925, along with some of the midship guns, and the gun at the tip of her stern. Six were relocated to the casemate on main deck, and two to the top of the casemate on 01 level. She lost the remaining hull guns in her 1942 refit. The two guns on top of the casemate were either lost in the 1942 refit, or removed in 1941 prior to the refit.
I really like the guy hosting the video. You can tell he loves his job and all things battleship. Would love to get a tour from him on the USS New Jersey or USS Texas.
Kudos for the use of the phrase “Like she’s a frickin’ 1700s sailing ship!”
Looking forward to when Team Battleship New Jersey comes to the UK to look at HMS Belfast, the SS Great Britain, HMS Warrior & HMS Victory!
And HMS Caroline, HMS Medusa, and the X24 midget submarine!
Texas was not a Dumpy Ship.
My Dad was a signalman on Texas in about 1921. Also played on the ship's baseball team. He and Dizzy Dean were raised together in London, AR (and Paul, and Elmer).
I've been impressed and enthralled with battleships since I was about 9 years old. While I understand why the carrier exceeded the battlewagon as the main ship of the line in the navy of today, for sheer damage that can be done and impressiveness through raw power you just cannot beat a battleship. They used to be a nation's pride showing technological prowess as well as just how much sheer firepower can be brought to bear on a target point. It also greatly saddens me how many have met such ignominious ends such as decommissioning and breaking up for scrap steel. More should be saved. These would be so impressive and cool to the people of the nation when they are 2 or 300 years old. I mean, look at the Constitution. Thank GOD people had the foresight to save it.
Until the invention of the space shuttle, battleships were literally the single most expensive thing any nation could own. Save one for a museum, sure, but otherwise, not a lot of sense leaving them lying around.
I just found your channel and subbed. I live 30min away from the USS New Jersey and I need to go see her. Great Work !
I find it interesting how when Texas as built they did not really trust electricity and all these new electric things.. and so made manual backups of so much stuff.. like it had both steam and electrical steering, and the turrets have chain pullies where sailors can manually train a turret.. so slow to be useful in battle.. but they could do it..
I also found it curious why Texas and New York stored their shells upside down..
The point-down shell storage made it easier to screw the eyelets into the base of the shells for the (largely manual) hoists and rails that moved them from the magazines to the base of the turrets. I've been fortunate enough to walk through the forward magazines of BB-35, and see the divots on the deck where one of those massive shells fell during loading operations. Talk about brown trousers time.
@BryceKant The Navy still maintains a certain level of manual backups for critical systems aboard any vessel because of the need for redundancy in case of battle damage. Primary steering gears may be hydraulically-driven, but you’d best bet that there is a manually-driven way to crank over the rudders on a warship.
I took a hard hat tour of the Texas several years ago and one of the spaces they took us too was aft steering. In there, there were what I can best describe as old ships wheels (the kind used to steer old sailing ships) lined up about 5 deep and these were the emergency steering. It was amazing to see that in the ship. I think I have a photo of it somewhere as well. Pretty cool stuff.
Regarding not trusting electricity: At the time that Texas was designed, electrification was still in its infancy. Just 30 years beforehand it was something being demonstrated as a neat thing that was only starting to be understood. While Ohm had figured out what is referred to now as Ohms law in the 1820s (one of the most basic and fundamental building blocks of our understanding of electricity) it was initially discredited and then was completely obscure until it was republished in 1879 (again 30 years before Texas was designed). The first larger scale electrification of buildings happened in the 1890s. It wasn't until after WW2 that we had electrification of most of the US.
@@zanaduz2018 "Seaman Hulk, please report to the rudder room"
Nearly all Battleships are completely beautiful. I haven't seen one person lay eyes on one and not be in awe. Thanks for all your time and knowledge.
They used to have cannons down the sides like Arizona was designed for originally
Sponson mounted guns were a common feature in US battleships until the Washington and London Naval Treaties expired and the twin dual purpose mounts were introduced in the USS North Carolina class (5"/38) and their foreign contemporaries. As most of the older ships came in for refit they were retrofitted with similar weapons. But ships like the American "Standards" kept their hull depressions even after total rebuilds of the superstructure.
The USS Texas didn't need to keep up with fast carriers unlike the Iowa-class.
If this has been addressed in a previous comment, my apology, but this has answered a question I’ve had for many years. Despite much newer battleships being available, I assume that Texas delivered the big gun support for the D-Day invasion due to its more stable gun platform. A very informative video.
I would love to hear sometime time about how you got into running a battle ship museum. Seems like you grew up into this stuff and really snagged the dream job.
Check out our Museum Era playlist!
Let's face it. The boy knows a thing or two about boats.
@@jameshigh6481 no doubt he is the perfect guy for the job! Not every museum is lucky enough to run by someone who is passionate and knowledgeable about the subject.
@@jameshigh6481 In Navy speak, boats are submarines or floating things carried on the decks of ships for use in harbor.
@@Mrcaffinebean I knew that. More of a joke.
However, a couple of carrier vets referred to their ships as "the boat."
I was able to go view Texas when I was a child. It was fascinating to see it as a young child, and hopefully after she's refurbished I'll one day go back. I also had a good visit to Alabama a few years back and again, what a fascinating visit to see the ships of that era.
There used to be guns in those indentations below the deck
I have been on the ship and it's truly a sight to experience.
I have always been curious how did the crew get to the top of the upper tripod mast and what was up there? Spotting I know but what else? How bad was the sway up there?
Those tripod stilts I suspect are wide enough to allow crew to ladder up from inside.Spotting for ships over the horizon yes and fall of shot also.The ww2 japanese had very high supersructures for the same reason but did impinge on hard manouvering .I imagine they had grab rails inside because movement must be considerable?
@@glennpowell3444 Co(I wanted to see if we could make him climb them.) Ugh
Ryan’s videos are first class excellent informative viewing.
Casemate guns. There I saved you a video.
Well, those Texans always do things their way. I would not be surprised if the ship's crew had chili cooking contests, and with cowboy hats to boot!👍
I'll about bet that has been done more than once.
Ship Warts! there's a vaccine for that.
Nice of New Jersey to support Texas. Kudos!!
I think it would be neat if they made a phony range clock to mount back on Texas' mast. Just something as cosmetic, not actually functional.
As a famous Science Officer from the future would say… “Fascinating” . It’s inspiring to see and hear a young man so knowledgeable and interested in this truly important part of our history. I’ve walked the North Carolina and I hope to visit the Texas some day before I …. Fully retire..
He knows his stuff and has a great voice 👍 !!!
Love the view above the guns pointing over the bow. Point blank action.
Thank you for highlighting the Texas over the last few months. The last of the dreadnoughts.
Thank you for raising awareness for our historic ships and the sailors who have served on them.
In the late seventies both Iowa and Wisconsin were mothballed at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. My ship, USS Mahan (DDG-42) was there in dry dock for overhaul. One day I was invited by a friend to join an inspection party on Iowa and I jumped at the chance. We spent the entire day onboard going from the bilges to the battle bridge. I even got my picture taken sitting on Roosevelt’s toilet. Later in my career (1987) I was anchored in Augusta Bay Sicily when Missouri steamed in; what a sight. Few ships are as beautiful and impressive as the four Iowa class battleships. Darlington, South Carolina