Jump to content

USS Texas (BB-35) - in drydock


Recommended Posts


apparantly taken yesterday




Well would ya look at that… the bottom of a dreadnought, high and drying, in the year 2022. Note the paravane skeg beneath her forefoot, where the paravane chains would pass through from the bow to keep the minesweeping cables as low in the water as possible. This FANTASTIC photo, apparently taken yesterday evening on a cell phone camera by a hired videographer hired working with the Battleship Texas Foundation, shows in brilliant detail the condition of USS Texas (BB-35) below the waterline. This peek at the bottom half of the ship is a sight not seen in 32 years. Her last day in dry dock last came in February 1990. The red anti-foul coating on her lower hull is clearly exponentially beyond its useful lifespan, and the massive anti-torpedo blisters added to the ship’s original hull form between 1925-7 are readily discernible. Ironically, while the blisters typically provided additional stability to modernized dreadnoughts during active service, they became Texas’ primary adversary in her battle against flooding during recent years. One of her bilge keels, the angled fin under the port blister, is visible as well; these were passive systems for improving ship stability by reducing roll from side-to-side.
Hopefully additional lower hull photos will be forthcoming over Texas’ months (or, rather, years) in dry dock. The bottom of ships are often relegated to the realm of modelers and shipyard workers, but there’s plenty of interesting features down there that are vital to ship functionality. Not to mention the volume of the lower hull - which figures heavily in the ship’s displacement!
Note: Photo is by Sam Rossiello, and I’m happy to remove the post if desired for IP purposes - but the image was so good that I wanted to share with the broader community and did not know who the photographer was at the time of posting


May be an image of outdoors

Edited by Kevin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Gregory said:

If you can get permission, could you do a screen shot and snip?   Image not showing for me..


I'm a displaced Texan, and have visited  BB35 many times.....My grandfather served aboard her back when..

Michael, i just googled her, and the internet is full of news clips about her moving, without breaking any copyright im sure you will find everything you need over the next couple days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

  The pictures in the previous posts seem to have 'vanished', but i just found something of interest to throw in ...



By early 1942, it was determined that Oklahoma could be salvaged and that she was a navigational hazard, having rolled into the harbor's navigational channel. Preparations for righting the overturned hull took under eight months to complete. Air was pumped into interior chambers and improvised airlocks built into the ship, forcing 20,000 tonnes (19,684 long tons; 22,046 short tons) of water out of the ship through the torpedo holes. Twenty-one derricks were attached to the upturned hull; each carried high-tensile steel cables that were connected to hydraulic winching machines ashore. On 28 December, Oklahoma was towed into drydock No. 2, at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. Once in the dock, her main guns, machinery, remaining ammunition, and stores were removed. The severest structural damage on the hull was also repaired to make the ship watertight. US Navy deemed her too old and too heavily damaged to be returned to service. Disaster struck on 17 May, when the ships entered a storm more than 500 miles (800 km) from Hawaii. The tug Hercules put her searchlight on the former battleship, revealing that she had begun listing heavily. had begun to sink straight down, causing water to swamp the sterns of both tugs. As the battleship sank rapidly, the line from Monarch quickly played out, releasing the tug. However, Hercules' cables did not release until the last possible moment, leaving her tossing and pitching above the grave of the sunken Oklahoma. The battleship's exact location is unknown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Snug Harbor Johnny said:

   'Guess "links" sometimes go off into Neverland.  A safe way to post an image is to take a 'screen shot' of it (a form of WISIWIG that merely duplicates pixels), then drag the image onto a post.

Early on in the Internet there were photo sites, lots and lots of them.  People naturally posted links for the photos in their posts.  And then, those sites started to disappear or accounts went away because those cost money instead of being free.   So here we are.....  Most browsers will let you download/save the picture which you can then store and upload as needed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too have noticed it is no longer possible to source images once available to view on the 'net.


A big past time during winter is to search out stuff of interest to me (technology of one sort or another) and build up several terrabites of photo files for my personal recreational use.


TEXAS. I have between 30 and 40 drydock images, mostly good quality.


Unfortunately the very nature of my hoovering up such images precludes any means of attribution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Funny thing about photos ... it seems there's no shortage of people who like to slap a "copyright" on anything they can get their hands on - whether or not others have done so for the same old photo !  The idea is, their own copy (or print) - say, of an old postcard from early in the 20th century - has 'unique identifiers' such as postmarks, notes, folds, tears, spots, foxing ... whatever.  And they want to claim exclusive 'rights' to the image that happens to be in their possession.


  Once an item is in the public domain, its there permanently.  Old books containing illustrations (we're talking over 76 years) have become public domain under laws then in effect.  Now the revised laws effectively allow stuff published or in print since the revision to get (effectively) permanent protection from commercial use due to the intricacies of the legislation - designed to permanently protect, say, Disney material - which are also registered trademarks.  But the old postcards mentioned above weren't issued with copyrights at all, since they were sold as ephemera (often printed abroad) - ergo became public domain from the time they were sold.


  Of course, these days someone can take any old picture and apply "filters" and effects to make whatever changes they want and then copyright it as new.  Its all very confusing.  However, anything one can see on screen over the internet can be 'captured' (various operating systems have various names for duplicating the pixels within a 'box' you drag over the screen - such as 'grab it') for personal use under 'fair use'.  And a forum such as ours can equally fall under the fair-use allowance, since we're not charging, branding or making claims other than 'hey, I saw this on the internet'.


  Speaking of something I saw on the internet, I'm posting a juxtaposition of photos below.  Using screen shots is better than relying on 'links' that can later go haywire.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...