Talk:USS Texas (BB-35)

Comment by TomStar81

Wasn't Texas Eisenhower's flagship during the D-Day landings? TomStar81 7 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)

I have been unable to find any significant information that suggests this is the case. The famous picture of Ike talking to paratroopers the day before the invasion would indicate that he was in England, probably at SHAEF command post. It's hard to imagine that he managed to get onboard Texas the next day. Although if you have some references.... Jinian 7 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)

For the invasion, TEXAS was Bombardment Force Flagship, for Omaha Beach, in the Western Taskforce. Doesn't today's (Nov. 15, 2005) main page state that the USS Texas and the Medea are the last two remaining ships to have served in World Wars I & II? The USS Texas article states that it is the only ship to have served in both World Wars....TRDavis 06:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Last remaining American ship it says to have served in both World Wars. I think the other is French.

See Medea (yacht) where it states that the Medea "holds the distinction of being one of only two vessels surviving that fought in both World Wars. (The other is the USS Texas.)" Sarum blue 18:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that needs to be revised, as the way it is written now suggests that their is another surviving battleship that served in both wars.

Citing Sources

I went through the Wikipedia:Citing sources information and unfortunately could not divine the "best" method for citing these sources. Based on the recommendation found there for what to do when you're not sure of the best method, I'm citing the sources as fully as I can here, so that it can be hashed out later (by myself or others) how best to cite these sources in the article itself:

For the statement

, along with the USS Arkansas, the USS Nevada, and three US heavy cruisers, along with a combined US-British flotilla of British battleships, along with five cruisers and 22 destroyers.

the source is: History of the US Navy, p.162, chapter "Carrying the War to Hitler", section "The Landings in France". Author: James M. Morris First Edition, copyright 1984 Bison Books, 1st American Edition by Exeter Books (a trademark of Simon & Schuster) ISBN 0-671-06980-2 Dewey Decimel: 359.00973 MOR

--- For the statement

Other US battleships that have become floating museums are the USS Massachusetts, USS Alabama, and USS North Carolina.

the source is: Fighting Ships of World War II, p.23, chapter 1 "The Battleship". Author: J.N. Westwood Copyright 1975 (Edition not noted - presumably 1st edition) by John Westwood and Sidgwick & Jackson Ltd. (Follett Publishing Company) No ISBN found in the book (were ISBN's begun after 1975?) Dewey Decimel: 359.83 WES

This source contains additional information on pp.50-51 for an entry on Texas herself, that could be used to cite source for information placed in the article by others, for if/when such sources will need to be cited to get this article up to Featured Article status (like Iowa class battleship, USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin Longshot14 18:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Memorial

The article currently states: "In 1983, Texas was placed under the stewardship of the Texas Parks and Wildlife and is permanently anchored on the Buffalo Bayou and the busy Houston Ship Channel, near the San Jacinto Monument. The ship officially reopened to the public on 1990 September 8." The word "reopened" is out of context here because to "reopen" would imply that the memorial was closed. However, the section does not say when or why the ship was closed to the public. Anyone know the answer?

Also, this seems to imply that the ship did not open for visitors until 1983. I think it has been open longer than that, but I don't have a reference. Johntex\^talk 18:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The ship was put into dry dock and underwent major repairs sometime in the late 1980's. That is why she was closed. ~~Daniel wright~~

Good Article Nomination

I've nominated this article for GA because it meets all the requirements and deserves more recognition than what it currently gets as a B-class article. Please note that you will see the article use the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships quite frequently. TomStar81 (talk · contribs), who is the author of this article has explained this in the peer review this article received in January 2007 when he significantly expanded the article. Thanks,-- MBK004 (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment more information on the heavy reliance on DANFS can be found here. I am co-nominating this article with MBK004 (talk · contribs). TomStar81 (Talk) 18:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review: On hold

I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria and have placed the article on hold at this time until the following issues are addressed:

1. "She made an overnight stop at Tompkinsville, New York, on the night of March 26 and..." Single dates shouldn't be wikilinked, go through the article and fix all occurrences.
   • Ignore, according to Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Dates.
2. "In 1916, Texas became the first U.S. battleship to mount anti-aircraft guns and the first to control gunfire with directors and range-keepers, analog forerunners of today's computers.[3]" Single sentence shouldn't stand alone, either expand on it or incorporate it into another paragraph. Go through the article and fix any other occurrences.
3. The license needs to be updated for Image:USS Texas (BB-35).jpg.
4. "That routine lasted just over two years until the February-to-March crisis..." Add a wikilink for the February-to-March crisis being referred to here.
5. "By December, she had completed repairs and moved south to conduct war games out of the York River." Add a wikilink for war games.
6. "Forward units caught sight of the retiring Germans on April 25, but at such extreme range that no possibility of bringing the enemy to battle existed." Consider rewording the last half of this sentence.
7. "For the next six months, she continued convoy-escort missions. Her destinations were various." Merge these into one sentence.
8. "asking the French not to oppose allied landings on North Africa." Should "allied" be capitalized here?
9. "Thus, unlike in later operations, she expended only 273 rounds of 14 inch (356 mm) and six rounds of 5 inch (127 mm)." "273 rounds of 14 inch and six rounds of 5 inch" what?
10. "On June 3, at 2:09 AM..." Earlier in the article military time was used; go through the article and fix all of the times mentioned to one method so everything is uniform.
11. "At 3:00 AM on 6 June 1944 Texas and the British cruiser HMS Glasgow" Full dates should be wikilinked along with HMS Glasgow.
12. Add an inline citation for the first paragraph of the "D-Day" section for the number of ships listed.
13. "Texas also closed to the shoreline; At" "At" should be lowercased.
14. "In performing the latter mission, she claimed one kamikaze kill on her own and three assists." Add a wikilink for "kamikaze".
15. "In 1948, Texas became the first battleship memorial museum in the U.S." Add an inline citation for this.
16. "During Hurricane Alicia, however, she showed that she still had some life in her yet." Consider rewording this, it doesn't sound very encyclopedic.
17. "Texas is a National Historic Landmark. Texas’s reciprocating marine steam engines are National Historic Engineering Landmarks.[3]" Merge these into one sentence.

These should be for the most part easy to fix. I will leave the article on hold for seven days for the issues to be addressed. When you are done or if you have any further questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 04:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Suggestions Marked as Completed

As each suggestion is completed, please notate as such and sign with ~~~~~ (five tildes) for only the date and time.
1. Got it. 07:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Got em all (I think...) 07:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
3. License was updated to PD-USGov-Military-Navy when I checked this morning 18:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Wikilinks found 19:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Done 07:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Done 07:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Done 05:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Yes, and done 05:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Ammunition, clarified in article 05:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Changed all occurrences to military time (I think...) 21:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Done 07:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
12. DONE 07:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Done 07:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
14. Done 05:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
15. The cite at the end of the paragraph is for that line, but I cited it again. 18:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Clarified 05:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
17. Done 05:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

GA passed

Good work on addressing the above issues so quickly. Since the issues were addressed, I have passed this article as a good article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. I incorrectly told you that dates such as December 7 or May 31 shouldn't be wikilinked so I went through the article and readded them. I also reworded the sentence found in point 6, look it over, and revert if necessary. I'd recommend adding an inline citation for "During Hurricane Alicia, however, it was reported by local news agencies that Texas had risen with the hurricane's storm surge and actually floated during the storm, to the surprise of even her caretakers." Continue to improve the article, making sure that all new information is properly sourced. Also, to anyone that is reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the large backlog. Instructions can be found here. Each new reviewer that helps to review articles will help to reduce the time that articles wait to be reviewed. Keep up the good work, and I hope that you continue to bring articles up to Good Article status. If you have any further questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 05:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

LAST REMAINING DREADNOUGHT?!?!?

This article states the Texas is the last remaining dreadnought. In most media and in other wiki articles, it states this this ship is the last battleship built in the dreadnought era. I and other media would consider ships like the Iowa or Yamato as dreadnoughts. I think something should be done or im gonna straight out murder someones ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.170.197 (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, dreadnought is a specific type of battleship design which is commonly used by naval historians to span the battleships HMS Dreadnought (1906) to HMS Queen Elizabeth (1913). The two ships you state: USS Iowa (BB-61) and Japanese battleship Yamato, are a different type of battleship, developed after the Washington Naval Treaty, known as fast battleships. As for being the last battleship built in the dreadnought era, it doesn't say that. What it says is that this particular ship is the last one of its type to remain from the particular era. Also, don't make threats (WP:CIVIL). -MBK₀₀₄ 02:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, since the Yamato is no longer afloat, I'd say it is not up for consideration. --Wootonius (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he was interpreting "dreadnought" to mean "a ship so powerful that no other type of ship can beat it," which was how the original "dreadnought" moniker was derived, but of course they made superdreadnoughts and then fast battleships which are different design classes. <eleland/talkedits> 18:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Claim to check/verify, and a museum ship count item to fix

I added claim "she is the only surviving American-built warship to have been powered by reciprocating steam engines" with reference being the NRHP Inventory/Nomination text document for the ship. The source includes claim on both page 2 and page 3, but is a little ambiguous, stating that she was one of the last two such ships built, and that the other one no longer exists (sister ship USS New York (BB-34), having been sunk in an exercise in 1948) and then stating she is the only surviving one. Leaves a little question if she is only surviving one of the two, or of all such ships. I basically believe the claim as I wrote it, so put it into the article, but it would be nice for others to consider its exact truth status. doncram (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Also it's claimed that: "By hull number, Texas was the first of an eventual total of eight US battleships that have become floating museums; the other battleships honored in this way are Massachusetts, Alabama, North Carolina, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin." That makes a total of 7 not 8. doncram (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the reference to be correct with regards to surviving. I think the USS Oklahoma (BB-37) was also built with recips, but will have to check this weekend. The hull number thing, check the footnotes, the Iowa is not mentioned yet because the museum has not been officially approved, but will happen. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for checking.

Okay, I see the footnote says "The missing eighth battleship is USS Iowa (BB-61), which has been placed on donation hold for transfer to Stockton, California, where she will become a museum ship."

It seems a little vague to speak of an eventual eight. Note that eventually more may be added, making it nine or more. Or maybe it will only ever be seven, because museum plans for ships tend to fall through (e.g., USCGC Fir (WLM-212), planned to be a museum ship in NYC but now for sale in CA). And then awkward to say "that have become" given that one of those is not yet a museum ship. How about, instead: "Texas was the first of seven US battleships that have become floating museums; the other battleships honored in this way are Massachusetts, Alabama, North Carolina, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin." with footnote "In addition, USS Iowa (BB-61) has been placed on donation hold for transfer to Stockton, California, where it is planned for her to become a museum ship". doncram (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me read through that, but the number of battleship museums will not rise above eight because there are no more in existence. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

corrections to Battleship Texas BB35

Hello:

I want to talk about corrections that I want to make to the Battleship Texas BB35 article before making any changes.

My changes are cited with original source documents that I have in my possession. Aside from the National Archives and the ship's administrators (TPWD), I have the most extensive collection of historic BB35 documents and photos. I have some documents that TPWD does not have (though I offered). I also gave TPWD copies of my documents that they did not have. Aside from the National Archives, I probably have the only complete copy the ship's deck log for all of 1918, approx 1,100 pages.

I am an expert on the history of the ship (but no one person knows it all). 1. Had the most extensive and detailed BB35 website and I am referenced in the Wiki source section for BB35. Part of my reason for creating the website was all of the major errors in the various published sources, including the DANFS section on BB35 was full of errors. (An outdated DANFS was used in the creation of the Wiki BB35 article). The current DANFS about BB35 (at the Naval Historical Center website) are my updates that I initiated on my own and sent to them. There are still a lot of obsolete copies in the Internet. 2. Mapped the ship's complete movement history using a computer mapping program (MAPINFO) and data that I bought from the National Archives. With a variety of computer programs, 3. Created the only known Booklet of General Plans of commissioning drawings, which are in AutoCAD. The Booklet includes detailed drawings of the Captain's Quarters as well as detailed data. 4. Wrote an ACCESS database that I used to inventory the thousands of drawings that are aboard (paper and microfilm) having looked at every paper drawing. In the process I rebuilt the file system. 5. With ACCESS I also wrote a database for ship photos that enables photos to be searched for and displayed on the monitor. I also scanned over 1,500 photos of the 2,500 photos linked to the database. 6. My work with documents and photos resulted in a tool that enabled a determination if exterior photos were BB35 and the date. There are A LOT of BB35 photos identified as NEW YORK and or wrong date period or not even dated.

Some of the corrections

OPENING PARAGRAPH - above the "Contents" 1. Texas was decommissioned in 1946 Change to:Texas was decommissioned 21 April 1948. (June 1946 is when BB35 deactivation was finished and the ship moved to the mothballed fleet at Hawkins Point, Maryland. The DAFNS, Houston area newspapers, radio coverage all reference 21 April 1948 as decommissioning)

2. She is also noteworthy for being one of only two remaining ships to have served in both World War I and World War II,[3] Change to: She is also noteworthy for being the only surviving warship to in combat operations in both World War I and World War II

There is also the British light cruiser CAROLINE, in Belfast that was also in existance in WWI and WWII but in WWII she was a training ship that remained in Belfast. Since the French yacht is not a warship, there is no inclusion in the my definition.

3. and she is the only surviving American-built warship to have been powered by reciprocating steam engines Change to: she is the only surviving American-built warship in the 20th Century to have been powered by reciprocating steam engines The Cruiser OLYMPIA (C-6), located today in Philidelphia, commissioned in 1895 has a triple expansion engine. It is smaller than BB35 and had three cylinders while BB35 has 4 cylinders

4. the first to receive a commercial radar in the US Navy, Change to: Was a testship for radar in the first quarter of 1939. (per the 1947 official RCA history on the developement of radar that I have). CXZ was experimental, not commercial. RCA incorporated the best features of CXZ and XAF (tested on BB34) to develope CXAM of which 6 were installed in the summer of 1941. CXAM was modified to CXAM-1, of which 14 were installed on US Navy ships prior to 7 Dec 1941. TEXAS as one of the ships to recieve the radar, during an Aug - Oct 1941 yard period in the Norfolk Navy Yard. I have the ship's yard report for this period.

CONSTRUCTION Texas’s main battery consisted of ten 14"/45 caliber (356 mm) 5. Mark 8 guns Change to: Mark 1 Mod 1 - per the armament page of the ship's deck log, which I have

6. which could hurl 1,500-pound change to:1,400 pound as of 1914. The 1,500lbs did not exist at this time. I have a 1912 USN drawing of the 1,400lbs shell. The 1,500 lbs shell did not come into existance until the later part of the 1930s. I have 14inch shell penetrations tables for the 1930s with shell weights

7. torpedo tubes, two on each side forward at frame 31, with a magazine of 12 torpedoes Change to torpedo tubes, two on each side forward at frame 30 and frame 34, with a magazine of 12 torpedoes stored below the torpedo rooms. (Any number of drawings that I have) Frames should be deleted for it is a meaningless term to most readers. A better description of location would be the actual distance from the bow which is 128 feet and 140 feet (center of tube). The distance between frame is 4 feet. The ship's 2nd platform 1912 joiner (a joiner is a drawing showing internal outfitting) shows the tube center line at frame 32 and frame 35.

8 Texas and her sister New York were the only battleships to store and hoist their 14-inch (356 mm) ammunition in an inverted, nose-down position, in cast iron cups Change to: Texas and her sister New York stored their 14-inch (356 mm) ammunition horizontal but later modified to nose-down position, in cast iron cups. Both ships moved the shells up to the guns vertically with the nose pointed downward. (Horizontal storage is per NNS document "USS TEXAS General Information finished plans 37 and 38, which I have a copy of. When the vertical storage was created is not known.

CAREER (US) 9. Cost: Change to: Price. (In it's present form, the data reads that the amount was the actual cost but was only the contract price. $10,971,524 is the finished cost - per the "Navy Yearbook 1917-1918", that I have a copy of. I have some cost breakout figures. 10. Completed:13 October 1913 Change to 12 March 1914. (Phots during the 21 - 29 Oct 1913 sea trials shows the mainmast was not completed. The NNS document "General Information USS TEXAS finished plans 37 and 38" has the last armored plate not being installed until 10 March 1914.

11. Decommissioned: 18 June 1946 Change to: 21 April 1948. (Ref correction 1 above and I also have the deck log for 21 April 1948)

This is a first time edit for me and I wanted to being up what I propose to do before proceeding. — IronShipIronShip (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Before any of this can go in the sources need to be checked against our policies regarding Reliable Sourcing, if they check out, then you are welcome to add the information to the article as it currently stands. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Like what Tom has said, we need to be able to check these sources against our policies, and they also need to be cited properly (and some diagrams and photos cannot be cited properly to be included). In the interests of transparency, would you mind telling us which website? Also, do you mind if I segment and format your initial post so it is easier to respond to some of your statements? -MBK₀₀₄ 00:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

continuation

Good evening

I not sure how or if I can add to my previous comment so I started a new comment as a continuation. Can I do so without starting a new comment?

You are welcome to rearrange the 11 corrections I posted in the Comments section.

I am the reference source Charles Moore and it was to my BB35 website. When EV1 closed down, I moved the site to a Yahoo business account. I got tired of paying for the website so I took it off in July 2007. I saw one of the editors lives in Klein. I live just off FM 1960 near Stuber Airline. If you want to arrange a time to come by you are welcome to do so. I will give you a copy of website on cd and other digital sources. You will not find any other source or group that has such vast amount of readily accessible BB35 data. Some of my history section is being installed on a new website for the Battleship Texas Foundation. The work-in-progress website is http://d20798495.m217.mcneelandson.com/ will give you some idea of the extent of my information.

One quick verification for some of the corrections is go to the website of US Naval Historical Center, click on the DANFS section and read through the current BB35 section. Again, I noted the errors and initiated the

I have another 20 corrections that go up through the 13 December 1988 to 26 July 1990 repair perod.

As I stated in my previous post, when I started the website and I relied on original source documents-photos for too many second and third hand sources had too many errors, including the official USN history.

– IronShip (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You can add on by clicking the edit tab at the right side of the page at the section you want to edit. I've taken the liberty to eliminate your new section as it is not needed. I will need a bit of time to digest through everything you've written before I can have a detailed response. And thank you for permission to format, that will make it much easier for Tom and myself to respond. Might I suggest in the mean-time that you read all the links that Tom has placed on your talk page. If you'd like more, I can provide even more that are useful for new editors. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you don't mind, I may take a few days and not respond until Tuesday since I've got some work to do with regards to school this weekend. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the status of my corrections?

– — —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronShip (talk • contribs) 03:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left you a message on your talk page. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)