Folks, I am sorry about the missed 2:00 premier time. I discovered a serious problem with the video just a few minutes before it was supposed to drop and I had to take it down. A corrected version is now uploading and should premier at 7:00PM CST. Thanks for your patience!
Thank you Tom. There is a lot of engineering involved in these machines. Kinda like the navies Aircraft Carriers. My father was in the Navy in WW II. He served on a cargo ship. This generation was amazing..... They got the job done. They had clear orders from Washington - defeat Japan. These shells were the size of modern day cars weight wise.. A lot of high explosive. This process was complex yet simple.... My guess is the old chiefs keep this process going. These powder bag men must have been strong. I read a Vietnam story years ago where some Marines were near the coast of the Gulf of Tonkin and called for a fire mission. The U.S.S New Jersey answered their call. The Jersey fired their big guns at the target. The Marines said it sounded like a train flew over them. Next the controller called for a battle damage assessment. Once the smoke & dust cleared, the marines told them the hill was gone. Misssion completed! Go Navy.....
You're sweating pretty good in there! I can only imagine adding two dozen other men working like mad against active machinery. Keeping in mind that the spaces you've shown us seemed relatively clean and spacious. The conditions during wartime had to of been filthy and atrocious, at best. Very well done. I am envious of your opportunity to make these videos.
There was a great deal of pride and effort that went into keeping these spaces very clean. However, that doesn't mean that it wasn't hot, noisy and full of moving things that could crush you!
@@tomscotttheolderone364 I noticed 12-14" air handling ducts ...round circles with screens over them. Was that for air in from the outside near the stacks or...?
Amazing to see (almost) the whole system still present. So clarifying to be able to show and (partially) demonstrate it. There so much to it, even in that era.
There are some 16" powder canister's on the USS Missouri. The seal is locked by a cam which requires the wrench you mentioned. If I recall correctly the cam locks in either direction but a pointer on the cam points to "Full" and "Empty" on the lid, based on the direction of wrench turn. This makes a more visual physical indicator for empty canisters, probably desirable for low light situations.
It would certainly make sense to have an indicator like you describe, but I haven't seen any sign of one on historic drawings and photos of 14" tanks, nor is there one on the tank that was on Texas.
we've all seen guns fired in news reels and movies - but your video really brings it home the hard conditions, the hard work it took to keep these guns fed during battle - i personally had no idea it took so much man power to handle the munitions to get to the breach before firing - there is so much to it - all of that and the high risk of emergencies under battle conditions - my thoughts go to all those who never returned, such a horrible but noble way to go
Thank you very much Mr. Tom, Kind regards from Barranquilla - Colombia - South America. I am a follower of the history of that glorious USS TEXAS battleship, I hope you always have it well maintained, because it is a fundamental piece of the history of the great battleships of the United States, a respectful hug.
Very detailed description......this is such fascinating information. People have no idea what a treasure we have in the Battleship Texas. Thank you so much Tom for sharing your knowledge, and passion you have for this beautiful lady.
Thankyou Tom, your knowledge about battleship texas, down to every tiny detail is just incredible, and keeping history alive, certainly look forward to your next video,
Awsome video Tom!! I remember on a hard hat tour the tour guide pointed out a few dents in the floor from a oops moment. Can’t wait for another tour. Keep up the videos.
Yeah, there are a lot of dents in all of the handling rooms. A veteran who was on board after the end of WWII said that most came from the civilian workers who frequently dropped shells during the process of removing them and powder tanks from the ship for the last time. There is a lock on the chain trolley that kept the hoisting chain from slipping and they apparently would forget to set it. I suspect that a crew shell man who forgot to do it and dropped a shell would be in deep trouble.
Seeing the shells stored nose down like that is so alien to me. On the USS Iowa we used par buckling to slide our shells into the shell hoists. It seems so much more efficient than using chain hoists.
What a great job you've done explaining how it works. I've read plenty of sources about large gun turrets and seen introductory/training videos from the various navies, but those have almost all been about USN, RN or KM systems from WW2 (although the RN of course had WW1 era vessels such as the great Queen Elizabeth class BBs). Even so, none of them are as wonderful as having you take the time to walk through each of the spaces giving such detailed explanations of every stage, what was trying to be achieved and how that then flowed to the next stage. We're so spoiled these days with UA-cam videos from people such as yourself, and Ryan over at BB New Jersey, to give us the next closest thing to getting to see them ourselves. I'd love to visit, but that's obviously been something of an issue over the past few years as it's a very long way to travel from here. Still hope to, however. Thanks for the excellent, informative and (oddly?) entertaining videos you make. Loved the "Getting loaded" video, too, and the title made me laugh; I suspect the crew getting loaded in those spaces would've been rather dangerous to say the least, lol. Cheers from Sydney, Aus.
I am always amazed at the, large & small, dedicated analog mechanisms which went into making these processes as efficient and safe as possible. For example, the simple ringer which signals "ready" from one compartment to the next. Nowadays some engineer would cobble together "industry-standard" components into a system 10x as complex, that costs 2x as much, and 1/2 as safe and reliable.
Excellent basic discussion of how the different spaces were used and interfaced together to load and fire the big guns. Most people (even current members of the US Navy) don't realize how much man-power was needed to maintain the fire the main guns of any battleship.
These processes would not pass a time and motion study. Its amazing that the rate of fire is as high as it is with all the people in each of these spaces
An argument could certainly be made that it was inefficient if you simply look at the number of crew required to move ammunition and load. However, I think that the crew would have done nicely if subjected to a time and motion study and we concentrate on results, in spite of the primitive mechanical positions. Tasks were broken down so that each crew member had a limited task that could be repeatedly perform with minimal motion and without becoming overly fatigued. Each also stayed within a their well defined position so that they stayed out of each other's way, and they drilled on a regular basis so that tasks were pretty well committed to muscle memory. Those who had tasks requiring a lot of physical strength and endurance, such as lifting and passing powder bags, were exercised on a daily basis. The British were highly critical of the turret system's mechanical design and lack of powered systems, but they also admitted that it worked as well because of the crew's level of training.
at one point her main guns fired 250 rounds of sustained fire for 34 minutes during Operation Overlord. Roughly 25 rounds per gun. Or one round every 1.3 minutes. All those rooms must've been as busy as a beehive.
I bet they were! However, considering that each gun was capable of one round every 45 seconds for at least a brief period, 1.3 should have been sustainable for extended periods.
At Jutland, was it not the storage of shells and powder in the upper handling room on the British battle-cruisers, which aided quick firing but was in violation of the Navy regulations, that led to the catastrophic losses of HM Ships Invincible, Queen Mary and Indefatigable?
I'm given to understand that as well as an excess of ready-use shells and charges being stored, British turret systems included a number of anti-flash controls that were disabled by the ships' crews in order to maximise their rate of fire. When incoming fire breached the turrets, there was nothing to impede the flash from traveling down to the magazines, and... well, we know what happened next.
You said only Texas and New York stored their shells upside down. Were their some flaws in the system that caused them to not repeat this on other ships? Also, what were the advantages of this system over conventional storage systems? Thanks.
First, this system offered no advantages over newer systems, except perhaps it was a simpler design that was cheaper and easier to build. While I have no documentation to base my opinion on, I suspect that as the first ships to use 14" guns, part of the problem with Texas and New York was that the Navy and shipbuilders simply didn't have the time to fully develop and incorporate a more sophisticated system like the one used on the following Nevada class. So while the system was somewhat primitive, they knew it would work. Again, that is strictly my opinion. Fortunately, a well trained and conditioned crew could largely overcome the limitations. The new system used after Texas had shells stored sitting on their bases on the deck and moved with a method called parbuckling. More shells were also stored on circular platforms within the turret structure placing them closer to hoists and eliminating much of the manhandling required on earlier designs. It was successful enough to be used on all U.S. battleships beginning with the Nevada class and extending through the Iowa class.
My hats off to you ol' fella for working in stuffy, confined spaces just to tell just about the big guns of the Texas. I couldn't imagine being one of those crew men who operated those guns. The only thing I've ever wonder was... did any battleship designers think of a better way to streamline that process. So many men in 1 space, the process streamlined could probably cut that number down and make it more efficient. So many powder passers jogging around in one room, lifting and passing such a weight.
That's TEAMWORK!!! Some crews got so good, they could fire two shells per minute. I heard one story of a crew that fired two shells in 48 seconds!!! That's a gun crew for the record books. Especially considering how much these shells and powder bags weighed. Also, 70% of a ship's crew were 20 years old, or less.
A question to your excellent presentation, Scott! The purpose of the "Shell Deck", or similar in tanks and even aircraft, is what is also called a "Ready Rack", ammo that is in immediate reach to loaders as you described, but it also has a purpose of quickly switching to another type of round from HE to AP for instance. I am curious if there is instructions saying what shells where in the ready rack? I guess it might be AP rounds as they would be far less likely to detonate by accident. PS: Have you seen my videos on the turrets of the He 111? There was almost nothing written about operating those systems, just parts and how to service them.
Thanks for the compliment. I don't think that the high capacity shells were anymore likely to detonate than the ap's. I have never seen anything that specified the type stored on the shell deck. I imagine that it varied depending upon what may be needed for a specific mission. For instance, about 2/3rds of the shells expended at Normandy were high capacity. These guys were pretty smart, so my bet would be they foresaw that possibility and had a mixture available on the shell deck.
Really appreciate your demonstration and diagram, the pressure on the men must have been intense during a reload while the ships maneuvers. I wonder if they had a man on standby in case needed to takeover for someone.
I have never seen or heard anything about crew being held in reserve, but there was extra capacity in the form of high manning levels used in the rooms to spread out the work load and reduce fatiguing. If someone was disabled, his work could be spread out among the others, but at the expense of increasing their fatigue. It is my understanding that the crew in the powder magazines, particularly the tank men, had to be changed out periodically. When powder tanks were opened, they released ether that out gassed from the propellant. It was not enough to anesthetize crew or dull their wits, but it was enough to give them a bad headache. So, they switched places with other men working outside of the magazine to recover before going back in.
First time I have seen the pockets used to hold the shells in the shell rooms (not shown on tours of Texas the two times I visited in the 1990s). But still have not seen an answer as to why the New York class stored the shells pointy end down.
They actually started with shells stored horizontally on racks that were picked up and moved using tongs, similar to those used by the British. This was also the way earlier U.S. ships stored their 12" shells. However, prior to placing one in the lower hoist, they had to swing the shell base up to attach it to the hoist cable. I have not seen any documentation to support this, but my best guess is that after living that for a while, they figured that significant time and effort could be saved by simply storing shells nose down to begin with. That automatically placed the shell in a lift position. It also presented them with a better way to grab and push a shell that weighed 400 lbs. more than its predecessor along the trolleys from the magazine to the hoist. After performing a shell count for magazines before and after the change I found that the new, nose down storage method also resulted in a shell storage capacity increase of about 10%. As far as why they used a hoist system that required hauling shells nose down, I again can only guess. The use of 14" guns on the New Yorks has all of the earmarks of being a rush job. The greatly improved handling systems on the following Nevada class were likely still in development and not ready for use. If that is the case, the decision to use the hoists found on Texas was one of expedience. It was simple to design, install and operate, even if it was less efficient. However, a well trained and conditioned crew could maintain a rate of fire of 45 seconds per gun on the system.
Thanks Tom! It was great to see a detailed description of the powder dividing room (powder flat), one of the more obscure spaces on the ship. Some questions: How is this space accessed? Is it very difficult to access? There seem to be two doors that cover the power hoist outlet. What is the purpose of the second, thinner door? At 11:30, what looks like a hinged door can be seen in the lower left of the frame. Is this one of the manual hoist doors? At 13:30, peeking out behind an open access door, is that an immersion tank? As always, thanks for your enthusiasm and hard work in making these gems!
There is a ladder on each side of the forward part of the shell deck that is a short climb to the dividing room. It's not particularly easy to get into. You have to step up on the projectile storage rack to get on the first step, squeeze through a small hatch into a blower room, then go into the dividing room. I don't know why the second door is there, except maybe to keep junk from falling into the hoist when it is not in operation. Yes, that is one of two doors used to push powder bags through if using the manual auxiliary powder hoists. There are no immersion tanks in the dividing room.
Thanks! The time has now bumped back to 7:00PM. It should have dropped by now, but I found a major problem with it just as it premiered at 2:00. All I could do was kill the entire video and reload a new, corrected version. It is still uploading.
I'm going to give you a much larger answer than you bargained for because it touches upon a very important subject that I haven't properly dealt with. The short answer to your question is I don't think sharp objects were an overriding concern, even if they were present. The reason is because all powder handling crew were highly trained and constantly practiced. That means that each individual followed a very specific set of movements that would avoid those hazards. In other words, they simply avoided sharp object hazards as a matter of practice to the point of muscle memory. Here's the long answer. What I've gathered from gunnery manuals of the period is that safety was an overriding concern when handling powder. There was the real risk that the ship would be lost if there was an accident that lead to a fire in a powder magazine or handling room. Needless to say, lighters, matches and any other potential ignition sources were strictly banned in those areas. While there were written procedures that dealt with powder bag tears, they did not address causes for tears. One exception was that bags were not to be lifted using only the fabric lifting handle attached to one end of each bag. The handle was only used as an aid to position the bag so that most of its weight could be supported by placing the other hand under the bag and lifting it. The easy assumption is that lifting a 105lb. bag by just the strap could cause it to tear off the bag and damage it. The earliest manuals discussed repairing bag tears by stitching them closed. Later manuals simply said that damaged bags were to be disposed of by dumping them into immersion tanks filled with distilled water that were placed in several locations around the rooms. Ultimately, the central question is what threat is caused by a torn bag. The smokeless propellant that formed the 105lb. charge was not the problem. Their grains were very large, easy to see and pick up, and if individual grains somehow caught on fire, they burned slowly and were easily extinguished. The very big danger was the 10 ounce black powder charge located in the red ignition patch at the back end of the bag. It was used as a booster to increase the effect of the gun's firing primer to a level that would reliably ignite the main charge. That stuff was a very fine grain powder that could spill out on the deck through a tear. From there, practically anything could ignite it, creating a very hot and violent flash. That is what kept the gunnery officer awake at night. If there was any sign of a tear or damage to the ignition patch, everything stopped, the bag was immediately dumped in an immersion tank and the deck carefully inspected for loose powder. If any was found, it would be carefully swept up and dumped in the tank.
Great video Tom. Just curious, were the rooms under the turret in the Super firing position built with more headroom, or were the chutes just longer? I suppose the shorter, stouter men were handlers. I'd love to know more about the personnel too. How were people selected for different tasks throughout the ship and which jobs were considered preferable? Keep up the good work sir.
All 5 turrets are pretty much identical, including their dividing rooms and upper shell decks. The additional height of turrets 2 and 4 was made up in the circle deck, just above the lower handling room. It was there that powder and shell hoists were made longer to accommodate the extra height. Watch my video, "Battleship Texas, Climbing a Turret", ua-cam.com/video/cTW6RX5ECMc/v-deo.html , to see a complete description. By the way, no two turrets were the same height, so the circle deck was the variable part for all of them.
As far as how sailors were selected, I assume it was much the same as I experienced. You fill out your dream sheet when you first sign up, then they assign you to something that has nothing to do with your three choices! :). Of course, many jobs required advanced schools and considerable training. Getting into those was likely a combination of good timing, previous skills and considerable luck. There were also a large number of jobs where it strictly came down to luck of the draw and no particular skill. You just had to be trainable and able to follow orders. Gunnery was very low on the list of desirable divisions since there were no skills that translated to civilian jobs. Within gunnery, there were definitely specific jobs that required the right kind of people. Powder passers had to have good physical strength and conditioning. Pointers and trainers had to have good eyes and be able to concentrate for long periods on visual tasks. Gun captains had to be able to think fast and be able to effectively lead a small group of men.
They could unload a gun if a cease fire was called before it was fired, but it was to be avoided. This is especially true if the gun was hot from being previously fired. It was not only hazardous, but if the powder bags sat in the hot chamber for more than a minute or two without being fired, the heat would change their ignition characteristics and they couldn't be trusted to perform correctly. Unloading a hot gun required clearing the turret of all personnel, except for a gunnery officer and a coupe of gun crew. They would then carefully de-prime it and open the breech. Each of the four bags would be pulled out and likely dumped into a water tank to make them safe. A gun crew member would then crawl into the powder chamber and attach a removable lifting eye to the base of the shell and tie a rope to it. The other end of the rope would be tied to the rammer that had been partially extended. It would then be run in reverse to pull the shell out of the gun and onto the loading tray. Doing all of this would likely damage the driving band on the shell, making it likely that the shell would be inaccurate when it was fired. It is for all of these reasons that it was much more likely the gun would be "unloaded through the muzzle" after a cease fire by firing it. In that case, the turret commander would be given permission from the gunnery officer, who had gotten permission from the ship's captain, to aim the gun in a safe direction and fire it. Since there were typically other ships around the battleship, it would also be radioed out to them what was about to happen so that they could be prepared.
great video. so texas could fire HE or AP. if the ship were in a larger battle where fighting cruisers or battleships was possible how did they know which rounds to send? did they keep a mix of rounds in the upper handling room or only one type?
They could certainly mix AP and HC in upper handling. The fact that they fired a mixture of types at Normandy required it. As far as knowing what rounds to fire, Texas was never in a position where she had to fire upon enemy ships. However, if they had, it's fair to assume that they would have a generally good idea of target type. From there, Combat Information Center and gunnery could decide what type of rounds to shoot. If they had the wrong type on the loading tray or in the gun, they would fire it to clear the way for the right type. Since they rarely, if ever, fired a full 10 gun salvo, they could also respond pretty quickly with the desired type.
Turret movement and aiming always took priority and would never stop to allow moving shells or powder bags. To begin with, the turrets only occasionally moved a lot. Once initially aimed, they would make small, slow movements for aiming corrections that had little effect anywhere in the handling system. The only location where it may be a potential issue was in the lower handling room where shells and powder bags were brought from the magazines and placed on the lower hoists. Whenever the turret was training over a wide angle, moving shells and powder there simply paused until it stopped. Small turret movements made it a little more difficult to get heavy shells on the hoists, but little more than an inconvenience. In the meantime, there were typically 24 shells stored on the shell deck, immediately below the turret. There were usually enough powder bags on the hoist, in the powder dividing room and in the side pockets to fire both guns at least twice. Moving powder and shells from those upper locations never paused since they were attached to the turret and turned with it.
Hi Tom! Which guns (primary, secondary, anti-aircraft) of the Texas that she owns now were used during WWII by her and which ones were WWII-vintage but used on other ships and which ones were cosmetic replicas not designed for military use? Is it true that the quad 40mm guns were from the Missouri in the 1980s and were those Missouri quad 40s used in WWII by Missouri or other ships or were they manufactured during the Cold War?
There are no replica guns on the ship. The 14" were on board and installed in October 1944, so they were used at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Most of the rest were all removed prior when the ship was prepared for donation in 1948. The 10 3" guns were replaced with early versions from the early 1900's, so they lacked the more modern director receivers and fuse setters found on the ones they replaced. All 40mm quads were removed and a handful of 1.1" quads were placed on board as displays. Those were removed in 1988-90 when the ship was in dry dock and a full set of 10, 40mm plus Mk.50 directors were placed on board. Many, but not all, were from Missouri that were removed from that ship during her modernization in the early 1980's. I don't know their history, or that of the others, prior to that. Most of the 20mm were removed, along with their directors so that the remaining have only the crude optical sights. I am not sure of their histories.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Thank you so much! Texas and the Foundation are so lucky to have you as a contributor to documenting and remembering and caring for her. I saw your video recently talking about the incredible fact that 9 of the 10 14" guns on her right now were her original 1914 guns and after so many decades from 1923 to 1944 they returned home to her in 1944 ready to fight in Iwo Jima and Okinawa. That is impressive that the 10 ancient 3" guns are still historically accurate in terms of Texas used that model at some point in her career. I am so glad those horrible 1.1" quads were removed in 1990. Those 1.1" quads were the worst weapons made by any country that were used in WWII. Completely worthless unlike the legendary 40mm quads. How about the six 5" guns? What is the history behind them? I did notice that some of them have "1919" stamped on them. It is good to know that they were built way before WWII but did Texas fire those six 5" guns during WWII?
@@nogoodnameleft Others are attempting to build a history of the remaining 5" mounts. It appears that at least their pedestals and slides are original to the ship, and the barrels replaced more than once. Like 14" barrels, they will always carry the year of manufacture and the dates of each time they were relined. These particular guns were used during 4 of the 6 times the ship engaged the enemy; 6 shots at Morocco, 272 shots at Normandy, 967 at Iwo Jima and 2,019 shots at Okinawa. We don't know the number of shots fired by each mount. The guns had an effective range of about 15,000 yards, or about 9 miles, which put a lot of enemy shore emplacements and other targets well within their range during landings. These were very high velocity, flat shooting weapons, with a rate of fire of 8-9 rounds per minute, so they were very deadly when used against anything less than heavy concrete bunkers.
That's correct. Both armor piercing and high capacity shells had base mounted fuses that were installed at ammunition depots before coming on board ships. HC shells had the ability to accept point detonating fuses in their noses that would be installed while the shell was on the gun loading tray just before it was rammed into the gun. There were two fuse options, an impact fuse that detonated when the shell hit an object and a timer fuse that would provide an air burst when the timer wound down. This would be set immediately before being rammed. Duds did occur, and they were both expensive and compromised the mission. The point detonating fuse, or PDF, was simply to improve the odds of the shell exploding when it hit. The ship's action reports indicate that they were used most of the time that HC shells were fired.
In 1914, capacity was 1,000 shells. In 1944, it was 1,200 shells. This is because shells were originally stored in horizontal racks, then changed to vertical, nose down. That allowed better space utilization and the 20% increase. Powder capacity was 2,000 tanks, or storage cans that held 2 bags. So, that was enough powder to fire 1,000 shots.
I would speculate that they could tell if a powder drum was full or empty by smacking the lid with their powder wrench. Empty drum clangs, full drum thuds. Ain't got time to make chalk marks if we're firing for effect.
I've been in there many times and there is no evidence of the 5" gun mount. The compartment was repurposed as a paint locker after the mount was removed. It was later subdivided by a bulkhead and the forward portion became a clipping room for the 1.1" AAA, then 40mm AAA mounts located directly above on the main deck. The very small portion in the extreme aft end now contains an empty rope spool. Neither space videos well. The clipping room is filled with empty ammo racks and the aft space is so small that even a fish eye camera lens doesn't get a good portion of it. You can see this by looking at the 2nd deck plans for different years in the following link. battleshiptexas.info/images/Drawings/DeckPlans/Overview.html
I am not aware of any program like that at the time. However, it shouldn't have been an issue on Texas. Pyrotechnics were a potential issue, but they were kept well below deck and were isolated in their own compartment equipped with sprinklers and capable of being flooded. Powder bags were not sensitive to rf or mechanical shock. The only potentially sensitive items were the Mk. 15 primers used in the 5" and 14" guns. That model primer had been used for about 20 years prior to WWII and continued to be used into the 1980's. There was no indication that they were sensitive to unusual mechanical shock or RF. They were also kept away from powder bags until the two came together at the gun mount. Even then, gunnery procedures required that bags be in the gun and breech fully closed and locked before the primer was inserted.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 I asked that question because it reminded me of something I seen once. I was underway when 9/11 happened and at 1st we was allowed to write messages on the bombs we where about to drop. Until the air gunner about lost his mind and started screaming about old Ordnance being hero unsafe. The bombs we where using where stamped NSWC Crane 1935-1950. old MK 80 and Mk85 dumb bombs they had attached JDAM kits onto. At the time our hanger bay was completely full of yellow and brown banded weapons. We had to dog all the hatches to the hanger bay and the only guys allowed in was red shirts. Thanks for the info
I don't think any system would be capable of handling and moving shells in force 6 weather. To that point, there wouldn't be much reason to try since you wouldn't be able to hit a target anyway. There's no question that there were times when it was very difficult on Texas due to ship movement. For the most part, it would be a matter of putting more crew on handling a shell. The biggest difficulty would be getting the shells onto hoists. One gunnery manual addressed that issue by saying that the shell would be brought close, then a rope would be looped around so that it was pulled into and held in the hoist.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 In 1940 HMS Renown fought Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in a force 10 gale. The commander of Scharnhorst's C turret commented in his after-action report: "I found astonishing the high rate and continuity of the enemy's fire, which was not impaired by the heavy movements of his ship. When the enemy turned away to port for the first time, he was pounding so strongly that his keel was visible at the stem".
Gunnery manuals called for powder passers to be exercised daily by having them pass a minimum of 50 bags. The goal was for them to be able to do it without breathing hard!
These rooms have only been accessible to the public by taking hard hat tours. Reasons for restricting access are the ladder climbs to those spaces are fairly hazardous and to protect them from vandalism, which has done serious damage to parts of the ship that are open to the public.
I used an led floodlight to supplement the light in the lower handling rooms and to provide all of the light in the upper handling room, dividing room and magazines.
I am disappointed in the condition of the interior of the ship! The caretakers have not even painted the decks to preserve them in the turrets. How can the caretakers even hope to get tourists to want to visit such an unpleasant ship condition. You guys need to get some painting parties busy painting the interior of the ship!
I understand your concern, but the good news is that the majority of the rust is cosmetic and not structural. The reason that areas like that have degraded is simply the size of the issue and what it takes to control it. When the ship was in service, it took a crew of 1,000 and a budget of at least $2 million in 1945 dollars simply to maintain her. Without that level of resources, priorities have to be set. Ship management between 1948, when she became a museum, and now have always had to work with limited budgets and a combination of a small repair staff and volunteers to do what they could. All in all, they did an excellent job using these limited resources. Another thing to consider is that there is much more involved than simply applying paint. If it was just that, vastly more could be done by ship staff and volunteers. Unfortunately, repainting an older area requires hiring a licensed contractor to first remediate and properly dispose of the lead paint and primers used in all parts of the ship. One fairly small area can cost as much as $10,000 dollars just for that. When you multiply that by several hundred spaces, passages, trunks, turrets and voids, you begin to see the scale of the problem.
Folks, I am sorry about the missed 2:00 premier time. I discovered a serious problem with the video just a few minutes before it was supposed to drop and I had to take it down. A corrected version is now uploading and should premier at 7:00PM CST. Thanks for your patience!
I can understand making these videos are complex
Very good diagrams. They really help us visualize how things operate.
Thank you Tom. There is a lot of engineering involved in these machines. Kinda like the navies Aircraft Carriers. My father was in the Navy in WW II. He served on a cargo ship. This generation was amazing..... They got the job done. They had clear orders from Washington - defeat Japan. These shells were the size of modern day cars weight wise.. A lot of high explosive. This process was complex yet simple.... My guess is the old chiefs keep this process going. These powder bag men must have been strong.
I read a Vietnam story years ago where some Marines were near the coast of the Gulf of Tonkin and called for a fire mission. The U.S.S New Jersey answered their call. The Jersey fired their big guns at the target. The Marines said it sounded like a train flew over them. Next the controller called for a battle damage assessment. Once the smoke & dust cleared, the marines told them the hill was gone. Misssion completed! Go Navy.....
You're sweating pretty good in there! I can only imagine adding two dozen other men working like mad against active machinery. Keeping in mind that the spaces you've shown us seemed relatively clean and spacious. The conditions during wartime had to of been filthy and atrocious, at best. Very well done. I am envious of your opportunity to make these videos.
There was a great deal of pride and effort that went into keeping these spaces very clean. However, that doesn't mean that it wasn't hot, noisy and full of moving things that could crush you!
@@tomscotttheolderone364 I noticed 12-14" air handling ducts ...round circles with screens over them. Was that for air in from the outside near the stacks or...?
I can not thank you enough for this wonderful series of videos you have put together.
You are very welcome, thank you for watching them!
Amazing to see (almost) the whole system still present.
So clarifying to be able to show and (partially) demonstrate it.
There so much to it, even in that era.
There are some 16" powder canister's on the USS Missouri. The seal is locked by a cam which requires the wrench you mentioned. If I recall correctly the cam locks in either direction but a pointer on the cam points to "Full" and "Empty" on the lid, based on the direction of wrench turn. This makes a more visual physical indicator for empty canisters, probably desirable for low light situations.
It would certainly make sense to have an indicator like you describe, but I haven't seen any sign of one on historic drawings and photos of 14" tanks, nor is there one on the tank that was on Texas.
we've all seen guns fired in news reels and movies - but your video really brings it home the hard conditions, the hard work it took to keep these guns fed during battle - i personally had no idea it took so much man power to handle the munitions to get to the breach before firing - there is so much to it - all of that and the high risk of emergencies under battle conditions - my thoughts go to all those who never returned, such a horrible but noble way to go
Thank you very much Mr. Tom, Kind regards from Barranquilla - Colombia - South America.
I am a follower of the history of that glorious USS TEXAS battleship, I hope you always have it well maintained, because it is a fundamental piece of the history of the great battleships of the United States, a respectful hug.
Thank you!!!
Thank you Tom for explaining all this awesome machinery with such enthusiasm. Time flies looking at your videos about USS Texas!
Very detailed description......this is such fascinating information. People have no idea what a treasure we have in the Battleship Texas. Thank you so much Tom for sharing your knowledge, and passion you have for this beautiful lady.
Thank you for your work Tom... love every minute of it.
I am glad you enjoyed it!
Thankyou Tom, your knowledge about battleship texas, down to every tiny detail is just incredible, and keeping history alive, certainly look forward to your next video,
Thank you!
Another very informative video. Thank you sir for your contributions.
You are welcome, thank you for watching!
I actually like this system more then the one used in the Iowa class, seems pretty efficient.
As always, a FANTASTIC job!
Awsome video Tom!! I remember on a hard hat tour the tour guide pointed out a few dents in the floor from a oops moment. Can’t wait for another tour. Keep up the videos.
Yeah, there are a lot of dents in all of the handling rooms. A veteran who was on board after the end of WWII said that most came from the civilian workers who frequently dropped shells during the process of removing them and powder tanks from the ship for the last time. There is a lock on the chain trolley that kept the hoisting chain from slipping and they apparently would forget to set it. I suspect that a crew shell man who forgot to do it and dropped a shell would be in deep trouble.
BZ! Great job as always Tom. You and your family have a great holiday!
Thank you, Bob, same to you and yours!
What a wonderful and masterfully done video. TOP NOTCH!!!
Another great video, great job Tom
Thank you!
This was very interesting…thanks so much for posting.
Seeing the shells stored nose down like that is so alien to me. On the USS Iowa we used par buckling to slide our shells into the shell hoists. It seems so much more efficient than using chain hoists.
What a great job you've done explaining how it works.
I've read plenty of sources about large gun turrets and seen introductory/training videos from the various navies, but those have almost all been about USN, RN or KM systems from WW2 (although the RN of course had WW1 era vessels such as the great Queen Elizabeth class BBs).
Even so, none of them are as wonderful as having you take the time to walk through each of the spaces giving such detailed explanations of every stage, what was trying to be achieved and how that then flowed to the next stage.
We're so spoiled these days with UA-cam videos from people such as yourself, and Ryan over at BB New Jersey, to give us the next closest thing to getting to see them ourselves.
I'd love to visit, but that's obviously been something of an issue over the past few years as it's a very long way to travel from here. Still hope to, however.
Thanks for the excellent, informative and (oddly?) entertaining videos you make. Loved the "Getting loaded" video, too, and the title made me laugh; I suspect the crew getting loaded in those spaces would've been rather dangerous to say the least, lol.
Cheers from Sydney, Aus.
Thank you for your kind words, I am very glad that you enjoy my videos!
This is excellent! Thanks Tom.
Thank you for watching!
I am always amazed at the, large & small, dedicated analog mechanisms which went into making these processes as efficient and safe as possible. For example, the simple ringer which signals "ready" from one compartment to the next. Nowadays some engineer would cobble together "industry-standard" components into a system 10x as complex, that costs 2x as much, and 1/2 as safe and reliable.
Handling those powder bags reminds me of hauling hay bales, the old fashion square bales.
Great video, again. Thank you.
My pleasure!
The heat and the blast from the guns must have been amazing!
Excellent basic discussion of how the different spaces were used and interfaced together to load and fire the big guns. Most people (even current members of the US Navy) don't realize how much man-power was needed to maintain the fire the main guns of any battleship.
These processes would not pass a time and motion study. Its amazing that the rate of fire is as high as it is with all the people in each of these spaces
An argument could certainly be made that it was inefficient if you simply look at the number of crew required to move ammunition and load. However, I think that the crew would have done nicely if subjected to a time and motion study and we concentrate on results, in spite of the primitive mechanical positions. Tasks were broken down so that each crew member had a limited task that could be repeatedly perform with minimal motion and without becoming overly fatigued. Each also stayed within a their well defined position so that they stayed out of each other's way, and they drilled on a regular basis so that tasks were pretty well committed to muscle memory. Those who had tasks requiring a lot of physical strength and endurance, such as lifting and passing powder bags, were exercised on a daily basis. The British were highly critical of the turret system's mechanical design and lack of powered systems, but they also admitted that it worked as well because of the crew's level of training.
at one point her main guns fired 250 rounds of sustained fire for 34 minutes during Operation Overlord. Roughly 25 rounds per gun. Or one round every 1.3 minutes. All those rooms must've been as busy as a beehive.
I bet they were! However, considering that each gun was capable of one round every 45 seconds for at least a brief period, 1.3 should have been sustainable for extended periods.
At Jutland, was it not the storage of shells and powder in the upper handling room on the British battle-cruisers, which aided quick firing but was in violation of the Navy regulations, that led to the catastrophic losses of HM Ships Invincible, Queen Mary and Indefatigable?
It is my understanding that the way powder was stored was at least part of the problem.
I'm given to understand that as well as an excess of ready-use shells and charges being stored, British turret systems included a number of anti-flash controls that were disabled by the ships' crews in order to maximise their rate of fire. When incoming fire breached the turrets, there was nothing to impede the flash from traveling down to the magazines, and... well, we know what happened next.
You said only Texas and New York stored their shells upside down. Were their some flaws in the system that caused them to not repeat this on other ships? Also, what were the advantages of this system over conventional storage systems? Thanks.
First, this system offered no advantages over newer systems, except perhaps it was a simpler design that was cheaper and easier to build. While I have no documentation to base my opinion on, I suspect that as the first ships to use 14" guns, part of the problem with Texas and New York was that the Navy and shipbuilders simply didn't have the time to fully develop and incorporate a more sophisticated system like the one used on the following Nevada class. So while the system was somewhat primitive, they knew it would work. Again, that is strictly my opinion. Fortunately, a well trained and conditioned crew could largely overcome the limitations. The new system used after Texas had shells stored sitting on their bases on the deck and moved with a method called parbuckling. More shells were also stored on circular platforms within the turret structure placing them closer to hoists and eliminating much of the manhandling required on earlier designs. It was successful enough to be used on all U.S. battleships beginning with the Nevada class and extending through the Iowa class.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 thanks! You are a fount of information!
Thank you for the excellent video... Are any of those spaces going to be refurbished?
I am not aware of any current plans to do so. All money and efforts are going into the upcoming dry dock session and hull repairs.
My hats off to you ol' fella for working in stuffy, confined spaces just to tell just about the big guns of the Texas.
I couldn't imagine being one of those crew men who operated those guns.
The only thing I've ever wonder was... did any battleship designers think of a better way to streamline that process. So many men in 1 space, the process streamlined could probably cut that number down and make it more efficient. So many powder passers jogging around in one room, lifting and passing such a weight.
Yes - look at the treaty-era battleships. There's a lot more power equipment taking the place of human muscle.
That's TEAMWORK!!!
Some crews got so good, they could fire two shells per minute. I heard one story of a crew that fired two shells in 48 seconds!!! That's a gun crew for the record books. Especially considering how much these shells and powder bags weighed. Also, 70% of a ship's crew were 20 years old, or less.
A question to your excellent presentation, Scott!
The purpose of the "Shell Deck", or similar in tanks and even aircraft, is what is also called a "Ready Rack", ammo that is in immediate reach to loaders as you described, but it also has a purpose of quickly switching to another type of round from HE to AP for instance. I am curious if there is instructions saying what shells where in the ready rack? I guess it might be AP rounds as they would be far less likely to detonate by accident.
PS: Have you seen my videos on the turrets of the He 111? There was almost nothing written about operating those systems, just parts and how to service them.
Thanks for the compliment. I don't think that the high capacity shells were anymore likely to detonate than the ap's. I have never seen anything that specified the type stored on the shell deck. I imagine that it varied depending upon what may be needed for a specific mission. For instance, about 2/3rds of the shells expended at Normandy were high capacity. These guys were pretty smart, so my bet would be they foresaw that possibility and had a mixture available on the shell deck.
Really appreciate your demonstration and diagram, the pressure on the men must have been intense during a reload while the ships maneuvers. I wonder if they had a man on standby in case needed to takeover for someone.
I have never seen or heard anything about crew being held in reserve, but there was extra capacity in the form of high manning levels used in the rooms to spread out the work load and reduce fatiguing. If someone was disabled, his work could be spread out among the others, but at the expense of increasing their fatigue. It is my understanding that the crew in the powder magazines, particularly the tank men, had to be changed out periodically. When powder tanks were opened, they released ether that out gassed from the propellant. It was not enough to anesthetize crew or dull their wits, but it was enough to give them a bad headache. So, they switched places with other men working outside of the magazine to recover before going back in.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 That explains it, thank you so much!
First time I have seen the pockets used to hold the shells in the shell rooms (not shown on tours of Texas the two times I visited in the 1990s). But still have not seen an answer as to why the New York class stored the shells pointy end down.
They actually started with shells stored horizontally on racks that were picked up and moved using tongs, similar to those used by the British. This was also the way earlier U.S. ships stored their 12" shells. However, prior to placing one in the lower hoist, they had to swing the shell base up to attach it to the hoist cable. I have not seen any documentation to support this, but my best guess is that after living that for a while, they figured that significant time and effort could be saved by simply storing shells nose down to begin with. That automatically placed the shell in a lift position. It also presented them with a better way to grab and push a shell that weighed 400 lbs. more than its predecessor along the trolleys from the magazine to the hoist. After performing a shell count for magazines before and after the change I found that the new, nose down storage method also resulted in a shell storage capacity increase of about 10%. As far as why they used a hoist system that required hauling shells nose down, I again can only guess. The use of 14" guns on the New Yorks has all of the earmarks of being a rush job. The greatly improved handling systems on the following Nevada class were likely still in development and not ready for use. If that is the case, the decision to use the hoists found on Texas was one of expedience. It was simple to design, install and operate, even if it was less efficient. However, a well trained and conditioned crew could maintain a rate of fire of 45 seconds per gun on the system.
Thanks Tom! It was great to see a detailed description of the powder dividing room (powder flat), one of the more obscure spaces on the ship.
Some questions:
How is this space accessed? Is it very difficult to access?
There seem to be two doors that cover the power hoist outlet. What is the purpose of the second, thinner door?
At 11:30, what looks like a hinged door can be seen in the lower left of the frame. Is this one of the manual hoist doors?
At 13:30, peeking out behind an open access door, is that an immersion tank?
As always, thanks for your enthusiasm and hard work in making these gems!
There is a ladder on each side of the forward part of the shell deck that is a short climb to the dividing room. It's not particularly easy to get into. You have to step up on the projectile storage rack to get on the first step, squeeze through a small hatch into a blower room, then go into the dividing room.
I don't know why the second door is there, except maybe to keep junk from falling into the hoist when it is not in operation.
Yes, that is one of two doors used to push powder bags through if using the manual auxiliary powder hoists.
There are no immersion tanks in the dividing room.
Looking forward to it, Tom.
Thanks! The time has now bumped back to 7:00PM. It should have dropped by now, but I found a major problem with it just as it premiered at 2:00. All I could do was kill the entire video and reload a new, corrected version. It is still uploading.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 No worries at all, take your time. 😊
I do wonder how strong those bags are as there are a lot of sharp objects around.
I'm going to give you a much larger answer than you bargained for because it touches upon a very important subject that I haven't properly dealt with. The short answer to your question is I don't think sharp objects were an overriding concern, even if they were present. The reason is because all powder handling crew were highly trained and constantly practiced. That means that each individual followed a very specific set of movements that would avoid those hazards. In other words, they simply avoided sharp object hazards as a matter of practice to the point of muscle memory. Here's the long answer. What I've gathered from gunnery manuals of the period is that safety was an overriding concern when handling powder. There was the real risk that the ship would be lost if there was an accident that lead to a fire in a powder magazine or handling room. Needless to say, lighters, matches and any other potential ignition sources were strictly banned in those areas. While there were written procedures that dealt with powder bag tears, they did not address causes for tears. One exception was that bags were not to be lifted using only the fabric lifting handle attached to one end of each bag. The handle was only used as an aid to position the bag so that most of its weight could be supported by placing the other hand under the bag and lifting it. The easy assumption is that lifting a 105lb. bag by just the strap could cause it to tear off the bag and damage it. The earliest manuals discussed repairing bag tears by stitching them closed. Later manuals simply said that damaged bags were to be disposed of by dumping them into immersion tanks filled with distilled water that were placed in several locations around the rooms. Ultimately, the central question is what threat is caused by a torn bag. The smokeless propellant that formed the 105lb. charge was not the problem. Their grains were very large, easy to see and pick up, and if individual grains somehow caught on fire, they burned slowly and were easily extinguished. The very big danger was the 10 ounce black powder charge located in the red ignition patch at the back end of the bag. It was used as a booster to increase the effect of the gun's firing primer to a level that would reliably ignite the main charge. That stuff was a very fine grain powder that could spill out on the deck through a tear. From there, practically anything could ignite it, creating a very hot and violent flash. That is what kept the gunnery officer awake at night. If there was any sign of a tear or damage to the ignition patch, everything stopped, the bag was immediately dumped in an immersion tank and the deck carefully inspected for loose powder. If any was found, it would be carefully swept up and dumped in the tank.
Great video Tom. Just curious, were the rooms under the turret in the Super firing position built with more headroom, or were the chutes just longer? I suppose the shorter, stouter men were handlers. I'd love to know more about the personnel too. How were people selected for different tasks throughout the ship and which jobs were considered preferable? Keep up the good work sir.
All 5 turrets are pretty much identical, including their dividing rooms and upper shell decks. The additional height of turrets 2 and 4 was made up in the circle deck, just above the lower handling room. It was there that powder and shell hoists were made longer to accommodate the extra height. Watch my video, "Battleship Texas, Climbing a Turret", ua-cam.com/video/cTW6RX5ECMc/v-deo.html , to see a complete description. By the way, no two turrets were the same height, so the circle deck was the variable part for all of them.
As far as how sailors were selected, I assume it was much the same as I experienced. You fill out your dream sheet when you first sign up, then they assign you to something that has nothing to do with your three choices! :). Of course, many jobs required advanced schools and considerable training. Getting into those was likely a combination of good timing, previous skills and considerable luck. There were also a large number of jobs where it strictly came down to luck of the draw and no particular skill. You just had to be trainable and able to follow orders. Gunnery was very low on the list of desirable divisions since there were no skills that translated to civilian jobs. Within gunnery, there were definitely specific jobs that required the right kind of people. Powder passers had to have good physical strength and conditioning. Pointers and trainers had to have good eyes and be able to concentrate for long periods on visual tasks. Gun captains had to be able to think fast and be able to effectively lead a small group of men.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Thanks for the info. Please keep the videos coming!
Very cool, thanks!
Was there any way to unload if they decided they didn’t need to shoot after loading a round?
They could unload a gun if a cease fire was called before it was fired, but it was to be avoided. This is especially true if the gun was hot from being previously fired. It was not only hazardous, but if the powder bags sat in the hot chamber for more than a minute or two without being fired, the heat would change their ignition characteristics and they couldn't be trusted to perform correctly.
Unloading a hot gun required clearing the turret of all personnel, except for a gunnery officer and a coupe of gun crew. They would then carefully de-prime it and open the breech. Each of the four bags would be pulled out and likely dumped into a water tank to make them safe. A gun crew member would then crawl into the powder chamber and attach a removable lifting eye to the base of the shell and tie a rope to it. The other end of the rope would be tied to the rammer that had been partially extended. It would then be run in reverse to pull the shell out of the gun and onto the loading tray. Doing all of this would likely damage the driving band on the shell, making it likely that the shell would be inaccurate when it was fired.
It is for all of these reasons that it was much more likely the gun would be "unloaded through the muzzle" after a cease fire by firing it. In that case, the turret commander would be given permission from the gunnery officer, who had gotten permission from the ship's captain, to aim the gun in a safe direction and fire it. Since there were typically other ships around the battleship, it would also be radioed out to them what was about to happen so that they could be prepared.
Thanks!
Should leave the magazine doors open and store powder bags in the turret, that ought to make things quicker!
:)
great video. so texas could fire HE or AP. if the ship were in a larger battle where fighting cruisers or battleships was possible how did they know which rounds to send? did they keep a mix of rounds in the upper handling room or only one type?
They could certainly mix AP and HC in upper handling. The fact that they fired a mixture of types at Normandy required it. As far as knowing what rounds to fire, Texas was never in a position where she had to fire upon enemy ships. However, if they had, it's fair to assume that they would have a generally good idea of target type. From there, Combat Information Center and gunnery could decide what type of rounds to shoot. If they had the wrong type on the loading tray or in the gun, they would fire it to clear the way for the right type. Since they rarely, if ever, fired a full 10 gun salvo, they could also respond pretty quickly with the desired type.
No More
1 second ago
I so wish I could be there when they move her.. I hope there are a lot of videos.
What stopped the turret from turning while they where loading a shell into the lift system.
Turret movement and aiming always took priority and would never stop to allow moving shells or powder bags. To begin with, the turrets only occasionally moved a lot. Once initially aimed, they would make small, slow movements for aiming corrections that had little effect anywhere in the handling system. The only location where it may be a potential issue was in the lower handling room where shells and powder bags were brought from the magazines and placed on the lower hoists. Whenever the turret was training over a wide angle, moving shells and powder there simply paused until it stopped. Small turret movements made it a little more difficult to get heavy shells on the hoists, but little more than an inconvenience. In the meantime, there were typically 24 shells stored on the shell deck, immediately below the turret. There were usually enough powder bags on the hoist, in the powder dividing room and in the side pockets to fire both guns at least twice. Moving powder and shells from those upper locations never paused since they were attached to the turret and turned with it.
Hi Tom! Which guns (primary, secondary, anti-aircraft) of the Texas that she owns now were used during WWII by her and which ones were WWII-vintage but used on other ships and which ones were cosmetic replicas not designed for military use? Is it true that the quad 40mm guns were from the Missouri in the 1980s and were those Missouri quad 40s used in WWII by Missouri or other ships or were they manufactured during the Cold War?
There are no replica guns on the ship. The 14" were on board and installed in October 1944, so they were used at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Most of the rest were all removed prior when the ship was prepared for donation in 1948. The 10 3" guns were replaced with early versions from the early 1900's, so they lacked the more modern director receivers and fuse setters found on the ones they replaced. All 40mm quads were removed and a handful of 1.1" quads were placed on board as displays. Those were removed in 1988-90 when the ship was in dry dock and a full set of 10, 40mm plus Mk.50 directors were placed on board. Many, but not all, were from Missouri that were removed from that ship during her modernization in the early 1980's. I don't know their history, or that of the others, prior to that. Most of the 20mm were removed, along with their directors so that the remaining have only the crude optical sights. I am not sure of their histories.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Thank you so much! Texas and the Foundation are so lucky to have you as a contributor to documenting and remembering and caring for her.
I saw your video recently talking about the incredible fact that 9 of the 10 14" guns on her right now were her original 1914 guns and after so many decades from 1923 to 1944 they returned home to her in 1944 ready to fight in Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
That is impressive that the 10 ancient 3" guns are still historically accurate in terms of Texas used that model at some point in her career. I am so glad those horrible 1.1" quads were removed in 1990. Those 1.1" quads were the worst weapons made by any country that were used in WWII. Completely worthless unlike the legendary 40mm quads.
How about the six 5" guns? What is the history behind them? I did notice that some of them have "1919" stamped on them. It is good to know that they were built way before WWII but did Texas fire those six 5" guns during WWII?
@@nogoodnameleft Others are attempting to build a history of the remaining 5" mounts. It appears that at least their pedestals and slides are original to the ship, and the barrels replaced more than once. Like 14" barrels, they will always carry the year of manufacture and the dates of each time they were relined. These particular guns were used during 4 of the 6 times the ship engaged the enemy; 6 shots at Morocco, 272 shots at Normandy, 967 at Iwo Jima and 2,019 shots at Okinawa. We don't know the number of shots fired by each mount. The guns had an effective range of about 15,000 yards, or about 9 miles, which put a lot of enemy shore emplacements and other targets well within their range during landings. These were very high velocity, flat shooting weapons, with a rate of fire of 8-9 rounds per minute, so they were very deadly when used against anything less than heavy concrete bunkers.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Thank you so much. The drydocking of Texas is great for publicity and awareness. I wish you all the best regarding the refit.
Where were the fuzes installed? Im assuming they were fused in the base?
That's correct. Both armor piercing and high capacity shells had base mounted fuses that were installed at ammunition depots before coming on board ships. HC shells had the ability to accept point detonating fuses in their noses that would be installed while the shell was on the gun loading tray just before it was rammed into the gun. There were two fuse options, an impact fuse that detonated when the shell hit an object and a timer fuse that would provide an air burst when the timer wound down. This would be set immediately before being rammed. Duds did occur, and they were both expensive and compromised the mission. The point detonating fuse, or PDF, was simply to improve the odds of the shell exploding when it hit. The ship's action reports indicate that they were used most of the time that HC shells were fired.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Thank you very much!
When I was in the Navy any ammo can that had MT written on it was empty. That’s gunner mate short hand lol.
What is the capacity for shell storage on the Texas?
In 1914, capacity was 1,000 shells. In 1944, it was 1,200 shells. This is because shells were originally stored in horizontal racks, then changed to vertical, nose down. That allowed better space utilization and the 20% increase. Powder capacity was 2,000 tanks, or storage cans that held 2 bags. So, that was enough powder to fire 1,000 shots.
I would speculate that they could tell if a powder drum was full or empty by smacking the lid with their powder wrench. Empty drum clangs, full drum thuds. Ain't got time to make chalk marks if we're firing for effect.
Could you visit where the stern mounted 5 inch gun was when the ship originally entered service? Is there any evidence of it being there?
I've been in there many times and there is no evidence of the 5" gun mount. The compartment was repurposed as a paint locker after the mount was removed. It was later subdivided by a bulkhead and the forward portion became a clipping room for the 1.1" AAA, then 40mm AAA mounts located directly above on the main deck. The very small portion in the extreme aft end now contains an empty rope spool. Neither space videos well. The clipping room is filled with empty ammo racks and the aft space is so small that even a fish eye camera lens doesn't get a good portion of it. You can see this by looking at the 2nd deck plans for different years in the following link. battleshiptexas.info/images/Drawings/DeckPlans/Overview.html
@@tomscotttheolderone364 thanks!
Working with Powder Bags did you have to be Hero Safe or was that even a know issue of concern at the time?
I am not aware of any program like that at the time. However, it shouldn't have been an issue on Texas. Pyrotechnics were a potential issue, but they were kept well below deck and were isolated in their own compartment equipped with sprinklers and capable of being flooded. Powder bags were not sensitive to rf or mechanical shock. The only potentially sensitive items were the Mk. 15 primers used in the 5" and 14" guns. That model primer had been used for about 20 years prior to WWII and continued to be used into the 1980's. There was no indication that they were sensitive to unusual mechanical shock or RF. They were also kept away from powder bags until the two came together at the gun mount. Even then, gunnery procedures required that bags be in the gun and breech fully closed and locked before the primer was inserted.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 I asked that question because it reminded me of something I seen once. I was underway when 9/11 happened and at 1st we was allowed to write messages on the bombs we where about to drop. Until the air gunner about lost his mind and started screaming about old Ordnance being hero unsafe. The bombs we where using where stamped NSWC Crane 1935-1950. old MK 80 and Mk85 dumb bombs they had attached JDAM kits onto. At the time our hanger bay was completely full of yellow and brown banded weapons. We had to dog all the hatches to the hanger bay and the only guys allowed in was red shirts. Thanks for the info
Thats all very well but how could all this happen in anything but calm conditions ? The process would be crazy dangerous in a force 6
I don't think any system would be capable of handling and moving shells in force 6 weather. To that point, there wouldn't be much reason to try since you wouldn't be able to hit a target anyway. There's no question that there were times when it was very difficult on Texas due to ship movement. For the most part, it would be a matter of putting more crew on handling a shell. The biggest difficulty would be getting the shells onto hoists. One gunnery manual addressed that issue by saying that the shell would be brought close, then a rope would be looped around so that it was pulled into and held in the hoist.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Yes that makes sense. Of course nowadays apart from ammunitioning ship most shell handling is automatic
@@tomscotttheolderone364 In 1940 HMS Renown fought Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in a force 10 gale. The commander of Scharnhorst's C turret commented in his after-action report: "I found astonishing the high rate and continuity of the enemy's fire, which was not impaired by the heavy movements of his ship. When the enemy turned away to port for the first time, he was pounding so strongly that his keel was visible at the stem".
Very interesting
I couldn't imaging humping 100lbs bags for any length of time. Holy smokes!
Gunnery manuals called for powder passers to be exercised daily by having them pass a minimum of 50 bags. The goal was for them to be able to do it without breathing hard!
What a pity. In 1999, these rooms were not open to the public.
These rooms have only been accessible to the public by taking hard hat tours. Reasons for restricting access are the ladder climbs to those spaces are fairly hazardous and to protect them from vandalism, which has done serious damage to parts of the ship that are open to the public.
Is this all in the dark?
I used an led floodlight to supplement the light in the lower handling rooms and to provide all of the light in the upper handling room, dividing room and magazines.
I'm not worthy. These men were miles above me.
Good explanation, but that shirt makes me want to send you some laundry detergent.
I am disappointed in the condition of the interior of the ship! The caretakers have not even painted the decks to preserve them in the turrets. How can the caretakers even hope to get tourists to want to visit such an unpleasant ship condition. You guys need to get some painting parties busy painting the interior of the ship!
I understand your concern, but the good news is that the majority of the rust is cosmetic and not structural. The reason that areas like that have degraded is simply the size of the issue and what it takes to control it. When the ship was in service, it took a crew of 1,000 and a budget of at least $2 million in 1945 dollars simply to maintain her. Without that level of resources, priorities have to be set. Ship management between 1948, when she became a museum, and now have always had to work with limited budgets and a combination of a small repair staff and volunteers to do what they could. All in all, they did an excellent job using these limited resources. Another thing to consider is that there is much more involved than simply applying paint. If it was just that, vastly more could be done by ship staff and volunteers. Unfortunately, repainting an older area requires hiring a licensed contractor to first remediate and properly dispose of the lead paint and primers used in all parts of the ship. One fairly small area can cost as much as $10,000 dollars just for that. When you multiply that by several hundred spaces, passages, trunks, turrets and voids, you begin to see the scale of the problem.
Just want to add, you are handsome man.
Thank you! My mother thought so, too!
Sounds like something the govt would come up with.
worked pretty well obviously.
I thought I was the only one who liked big guns glad to know I'm not