USS Texas

[Shar2]

Taita said:

Isn't 496 a type of steel or similar too?

I believe that's the specification for steel wire used as rebar in civil engineering.

[Shar2]

McGee_22 said:

You blind old beggars - get thee to specsavers - it was 0.486 inches thick - less than half an inch and most of that corroded. Lots concrete shoved into the hull over the years as well - RN used to do that too - I remember that on the Harbour Training Ships.

That'll be it then.

[FourWheelDrift]

And the 486 which was 0.486 would have been the normal hull plating not armour.

Just to add on the historic structures report for USS Texas the normal hull plating would originally have been 0.5 to 0.625 of an inch in thickness. So the 0.486 are the good bits.

https://archive.hnsa.org/handbook/bbtxreport/index...

Edited by FourWheelDrift on Thursday 1st December 14:43

[aeropilot]

McGee_22 said:

Taita said:

Shar2 said:

Taita said:

Did I see that right? It said the armour was 496 inches thick in parts?

Bloody hell

How do they fix the different layers to each other to make up the width? Offset edges on plates?

I think they got that very wrong as the thickest armour on the Texas' hull, the main belt, is only 305mm thick.

Isn't 496 a type of steel or similar too?

You blind old beggars - get thee to specsavers - it was 0.486 inches thick - less than half an inch and most of that corroded. Lots concrete shoved into the hull over the years as well - RN used to do that too - I remember that on the Harbour Training Ships.

HMS Ark Royal R09 (the last catapult carrier we had) I believe it was that had the nickname HMS Readymix due to the amount of concrete her hull had been filled with over the years.

[McGee_22]

aeropilot said:

HMS Ark Royal R09 (the last catapult carrier we had) I believe it was that had the nickname HMS Readymix due to the amount of concrete her hull had been filled with over the years.

My Dad served on that Ark when it was part of the FFF, the Far Flung Fleet, in Hong Kong, Singapore and Oz.

[andyA700]

Taita said:

Did I see that right? It said the armour was 496 inches thick in parts?

Bloody hell

How do they fix the different layers to each other to make up the width? Offset edges on plates?

When I went onboard USS Missouri in 2006. I was astonished to see the thickness of the steel on the bridge (citadel), it is 17" thick.

"The USS Missouri was the last battleship ever built and the most formidable. Built for speed and firepower and possessed thick steel armor plating that protected the hull (13.5 inches), the gun turrets (17 inches in front; 13 inches on the sides), the citadel (17 inches), and the conning tower sides (17.3 inches)."

https://ussmissouri.org/press/press-releases/might...

[BrettMRC]

andyA700 said:

When I went onboard USS Missouri in 2006. I was astonished to see the thickness of the steel on the bridge (citadel), it is 17" thick.

"The USS Missouri was the last battleship ever built and the most formidable. Built for speed and firepower and possessed thick steel armor plating that protected the hull (13.5 inches), the gun turrets (17 inches in front; 13 inches on the sides), the citadel (17 inches), and the conning tower sides (17.3 inches)."

https://ussmissouri.org/press/press-releases/might...

USS Massachusetts conning tower armour:

[Taita]

spitfire-ian said:

Taita said:

Shar2 said:

Taita said:

Did I see that right? It said the armour was 496 inches thick in parts?

Bloody hell

How do they fix the different layers to each other to make up the width? Offset edges on plates?

I think they got that very wrong as the thickest armour on the Texas' hull, the main belt, is only 305mm thick.

Isn't 496 a type of steel or similar too?

The caption says .486 inches thick. Would have been clearer if they'd written 0.486

Oh! Thanks!

[aeropilot]

andyA700 said:

Taita said:

Did I see that right? It said the armour was 496 inches thick in parts?

Bloody hell

How do they fix the different layers to each other to make up the width? Offset edges on plates?

When I went onboard USS Missouri in 2006. I was astonished to see the thickness of the steel on the bridge (citadel), it is 17" thick.

"The USS Missouri was the last battleship ever built and the most formidable.

Typical yank distortion of history.
The Mighty Mo was the last US battleship ever built, not THE last battleship ever built. That distinction belongs to HMS Vanguard

[BrettMRC]

aeropilot said:

andyA700 said:

Taita said:

Did I see that right? It said the armour was 496 inches thick in parts?

Bloody hell

How do they fix the different layers to each other to make up the width? Offset edges on plates?

When I went onboard USS Missouri in 2006. I was astonished to see the thickness of the steel on the bridge (citadel), it is 17" thick.

"The USS Missouri was the last battleship ever built and the most formidable.

Typical yank distortion of history.
The Mighty Mo was the last US battleship ever built, not THE last battleship ever built. That distinction belongs to HMS Vanguard

True, and I think the very last battleship completed was probably french, the Jean Bart?

[FourWheelDrift]

USS Texas likely to stay in Galveston and not move back to the arse end of nowhere at San Jacinto.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNKRWEkuz6A

[BrettMRC]

FourWheelDrift said:

USS Texas likely to stay in Galveston and not move back to the arse end of nowhere at San Jacinto.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNKRWEkuz6A

Makes sense - but there has been so much wrangling over this I doubt it will be the end of it.

[GliderRider]

aeropilot said:

HMS Ark Royal R09 (the last catapult carrier we had) I believe it was that had the nickname HMS Readymix due to the amount of concrete her hull had been filled with over the years.

Does that explain why the old carriers sometimes get sunk as artificial reefs? The scrappies aren't going to want a big lump of concrete.

[spitfire-ian]

Going off topic slightly but still on the subject of battleships, I've been wasting an awful lot of time recently watching the extremely informative videos on the USS New Jersey YouTube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/@BattleshipNewJersey

[spitfire-ian]

Latest update from the dry dock.

[98elise]

andyA700 said:

Taita said:

Did I see that right? It said the armour was 496 inches thick in parts?

Bloody hell

How do they fix the different layers to each other to make up the width? Offset edges on plates?

When I went onboard USS Missouri in 2006. I was astonished to see the thickness of the steel on the bridge (citadel), it is 17" thick.

"The USS Missouri was the last battleship ever built and the most formidable. Built for speed and firepower and possessed thick steel armor plating that protected the hull (13.5 inches), the gun turrets (17 inches in front; 13 inches on the sides), the citadel (17 inches), and the conning tower sides (17.3 inches)."

https://ussmissouri.org/press/press-releases/might...

I've been on USS New Jersey while it was in active service. I got to witness a broadside....



Those plumes on the horizon are the shells landing...



Bizzarly this happened a few minutes before. No idea why a commercial ship would try to make its way through a line of warships carrying out live firing. It nearly ran into the New Jersey!...



Professional shot of the same broadside. Obviously they had the advantage of a helicopter ...

Edited by 98elise on Tuesday 4th April 17:22

[BrettMRC]

I'm not jealous in any capacity.

Not even slightly.

Not at all.






You jammy git!

[wolfracesonic]

spitfire-ian said:

Going off topic slightly but still on the subject of battleships, I've been wasting an awful lot of time recently watching the extremely informative videos on the USS New Jersey YouTube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/@BattleshipNewJersey

Same here, latest facts that caught my attention was that they try to have the ship listing a couple of degrees to port or starboard so rainwater drains away, which wouldn’t normally be a problem when the vessel is naturally rolling at sea. The ‘barn door stop’ seemed interesting as well

[Simpo Two]

The flames are impressive but would give your enemy an excellent point to aim at after dark. Wouldn't they use flashless charges in wartime?

[spitfire-ian]

wolfracesonic said:

spitfire-ian said:

Going off topic slightly but still on the subject of battleships, I've been wasting an awful lot of time recently watching the extremely informative videos on the USS New Jersey YouTube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/@BattleshipNewJersey

Same here, latest facts that caught my attention was that they try to have the ship listing a couple of degrees to port or starboard so rainwater drains away, which wouldn’t normally be a problem when the vessel is naturally rolling at sea. The ‘barn door stop’ seemed interesting as well

Recently started watching the USS Iowa channel too, again with some really interesting stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/@BattleshipUSSIowaLosAngel...