In the early 70s, I was the gunnery officer on the USS Douglas H. Fox (DD-779). I had both firecontrolmen and gunner's mates in my Division. We had one Mk. 37 director with a Mk. 25 radar and three 5"/38 gun mounts, two forward and one aft, six guns in all. My GQ station was in the director. In theory, the system still had anti-air capability, but the speed of modern aircraft exceeded the tracking capabilities of the Mk-1A computer in the lateral plane. The Mk. 25 radar in our ship had something called RSPE, or "Radar Signal Processing Equipment," to assist the radar in acquiring and tracking a target, but we had an early version of it, and it didn't integrate well with the vacuum tube parts of the radar system that dated from WWII/the Korean War era. Also, the wiring for the radar system was so brittle, and the tubes themselves so vulnerable to breaking due to the strong concussion when the 5" guns fired, (especially in the closest mount, Mt. 52) that often only a salvo or two would cause the radar to fail due to broken wires or tubes. It was functionally useless for anti-air warfare. Also, and I say this based on personal experience, the sailors, chiefs, and officers operating the gunfire control system and the gun mounts were literally cogs in a machine. This WWII technology was limited, and men had to fill in many of the gaps that the technology couldn't handle. Also, at my station in the director, I had a power elevation and train control that slewed the director around quickly, but I couldn't use it if the mounts were in "automatic" control mode, because the gun mounts would rotate wildly in sync with my movements, and the gun crews could be rattled in the inside of the mounts like peas in a pod, causing injuries. Usually what happened was that (1) I would slew the director in the direction of a target with my power control while the guns were in local control; (2) the elevator and train operators would acquire the target visually through optics, or the radar would electronically acquire it, and tracking would start, (3) the data would go down to the Mk. 1A computer and when the computer would have enough info to generate a gunfire solution, the P.O. at the computer would yell "target solution" over the intercom, and I would order the gun mounts to go into automatic mode so that their barrels would point where the computer said we would hit the target. All this took time. I can only say that we in the early 1970s had only a fraction of the training time that WWII vets had, and my hat is off to them for the incredible amount of practice they had to put in to become proficient with this cumbersome system. Of course they did because their lives depended on it, but still . . . One day when our ship was in Canadian waters and we were at GQ for an unrelated practice, a Canadian S-2 Grumman Tracker snuck up on us and buzzed the ship at a fairly low altitude. It came and went before anyone was the wiser in CIC, and I was greatly chagrined at how poorly I reacted when I caught sight of the aircraft. It was gone so fast, and before I could traverse the director to even begin to track it, that I felt we would have been dead meat had this been the real thing. And this A/C had what was basically a WWII design. The only mission I felt our ship's guns could perform adequately was in naval gunfire support against land targets. We did Ok there in the Chesapeake Bay off Bloodsworth Island on one occasion. The counterbattery exercise was the only one where I could literally "pull the trigger" on the five-inch guns, and I have to say, it was a blast!
@@PhantomP63 The gun mounts had electro-hydraulic drives controlled by servos. And when they were put into "automatic" they did indeed move quickly! Don't get me wrong about the system in WWII. Especially with the proximity fuses, they were deadly. But I do believe the entire gunfire team, from ammo handlers in the magazines and in the upper "merry go round" handling rooms below the mounts, to the gun mount crews themselves, the FT's in the FT plotting room, and the FTs in the director with the director officer, all had to be trained so that their reactions were themselves "automatic." And they had to rely on info from CIC as well. And the thing was that the kamikazes were a one-man guidance system. DD-779 took some crippling hits from them off Okinawa, which knocked her out of the war. In the 70s when I was on the ship we saw some of the damage -- patched and welded-over holes in the main deck near Mount 53, so those attacks "left a mark" decades later.
"The navy wanted a lighter director - so they made a new director and it ended up 2 tons heavier" - Sounds about right for DoD procurement. Evidently some things never change
Yeah, but at least in the end it was heavier but also superior with the same capabilities plus some. Not so much a dig on them as just kind of how things work. Hah
I was a Fire Control Technician (Guns) I tried to get on New Jersey in 1968, but was late to the party as she was decommissioned in 69. I went to USS Oriskany CVA-34 and spent 4 years maintaining the forward Mk25 radar and Mk 37 director. I left the ship as an FTG1. Good memories. Thanks for this video, it brought it back to me.
@@DaveDaDeerslayer Who maintains the switchboards in the FC spaces? Layout appears to be same as an IC switchboard with power/metering/ACO sections. As an aside, for your trip down memory lane, does "12AX7" have meaning for you?
@@frankbodenschatz173 Used in everything from the Mk 19 Gyro Control Cabinet to the Synch-Amps to the sound-powered phone amps. From the number of them that the FCs would come down to borrow, I'm assuming that they were quite common in the Sea Sparrow gear as well.
You're right about that. It's hard to imagine what the mood in that room would have been in battle with the noise of the men, machinery & guns along with the listing of the ship turning at full steam. It's a wild contrast to see that room so quiet & sterile as a museum given the environment it was built for
Why do we need to know Geometry and trigonometry? If my teachers had answered "Fire control solutions" I would have shut up and worked at least 1.5x harder on learning the material.
Once when I was laying the guns for direction a soldier asked me what is the principle for doing this? I told him it was high school geometry. Two parallel lines intersected by a traversing line, the alternate interior angles are equal (or words to that effect). He smiled and said "finally getting to use geometry." Same thing for the optical range finders. High school geometry. Thank you Mr. Sapko, you taught me skills that lasted a lifetime.
In my High School English 1A class I did a report on "The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1783" by Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, just to P.O. the teacher. It was rather dry reading... I did manage to pass my Navy E-5 tests for Gun Fire Control Technician with just High School Geometry and OJT.
Another thing I would tell the students is that math itself is much like the battleship: there are a few parts that directly apply to something that already interests you (like the big guns), but the whole ship needs to be there for it to work, even the "boring" parts like storage lockers and void spaces. Likewise, there are a few applications of mathematics that already interest you, but we need the whole subject to make those parts work.
My algebra 2 and calculus teacher actually was in the US Navy during the Vietnam War, and did cite “destroying Vietnam” in class as a practical extension of what we were learning. I still remember it over 20 years later.
What a fantastic description and right on show of how it worked. Glad to see my old Gun Mount 51 is still there. In Viet Nam. Forward Mounts Starboard side 51,53,55 were usually controlled by Starboard Director and 57,59 by Aft. Director. Portside Forward Mounts 50.52.54 by Forward Director and 56, 58 By Portside Director. For both Surface action and Air Action. Many thanks go to that Chief for his descriptions of Plot. GMG2 Shaw 5th. Div. Viet Nam era.
@@breadbug6101 although I've seen some statements (partly various videos from this channel that go over some of the issues of putting these ships in concrete or on dry land) that Texas is to big and old for a permanent dry-docking, that the dry-dock would place significant pressure on Texas' hull, as such great risks would be taken, partly because its not really something that has been truly done before. One of the largest museum warships in dry-dock, would be the HMS Victory, much older, but of an entirely different construction in comparison to Texas. The closest we would have to what a dry-docked Texas could look like is the predreadnought Mikasa, older but quite a bit smaller and lighter than Texas, but of a more similar construction. Another issue is funding, Texas would require a dry-dock specifically designed to support her weight, that would require money, and unfortunately if they're struggling to raise the funds necessary to properly maintain Texas, the sad reality is that they're probably going to struggle to raise the funds needed to build a permanent dry-dock. Who knows, Texas might need further repairs by the time they might get the necessary money to build a Dry-dock, let alone maintain it.
@@Trebuchet48 i have watched it grow from double digit subs to what it is now and nobody deserves it more than these guys! The content they put out is always on point and Ryan gets better with every video.
Ryan your delivery has become much smoother, please take this as only as a compliment. You seem more comfortable with your video presence recently. These videos are terrific and informative.
The tube that supports the director is called a "Barbette". I worked on the MK37's successor system the MK68 which had a much-improved computer, radar & director. The MK68 GFCS (Gun Fire Control System) used the AN/SPG-53 radar which used the same radar dish and nutating feedhorn as the MK25 radar of the MK37 system. The only major update I remember to MK37 between 1950 and End of Life was the addition of Radar Signal Processing Equipment (RSPE, pronounced RIS PEE). RSPE was a digital solid-state add-on that automated the acquisition and tracking of radar targets by the MK25 radar. RSPE also used with the AN/SPG-53 radar. The AN-SPG53 radar of the MK68 system was a highly improved version of the MK25 using many of the same parts. I believe MK25 radar could track targets out to 100,000 yards and the AN/SPG-53 could track out to 120, 000 yards. When they re-packaged and upgraded MK25 to AN-SPG53 they moved the tracking scopes into a console in the main battery plotting room (Gun Plot) taking them out of the director which allowed them to make the MK-68 director about half the size of the MK37 director. That box you are resting your hands near (approx 14:45) with the two open doors at the back of the director below the salvo alarm is the Reciever/Transmitter unit for the radar. It had to be near the radar dish to shorten the radar waveguide for maximum radar receiver efficiency. The Mark1 computer was a marvel in its day, but it was a bear to repair. Disassembly, repair, and reassembly were no mean feat and could take the better part of a day. Star shells in the age of radar were primarily used to illuminate the target area ashore for USMC troops engaged in Naval Gun Fire support. Radars kind of killed the use of searchlights and star shells during surface engagements. And yes! rule number one of tracer ammunition and searchlights is that they work both ways! (FTG1(SW).
Knox Class DE/FF had the AN/SPG-53A radar then upgraded to the AN/SPG-53F radar. Basically most the analog components of Mk68 system were replaced with digital.
Linguistically it's NOT a barbette unless it's supporting a gun housing/turret. Ryan has mentioned the barbettes of the main turrets in many videos. Doesn't mean the crew didn't call it one, but technically it isn't, LOL.
Love the video of the "old salt" who tells the story from his days. He sounds exactly like my dad and my late grandfather. Bet he's from Staten Island. : )
I just want to say that I am such a fan of your channel..... SO interesting and informative, and concisely so. For example, in this video, I like how you spelled out the elaborate redundancy of the 5" gun systems alone, and the purpose of the redundancy. And like another commenter said, I love the older guy's description from back on his time on the ship. That footage was mixed in very well. Thanks for doing all this!!
Just visited the USS South Dakota BB-57 memorial. They have a Mark 4 director on display at their memorial in Sioux Falls SD. It’s great to hear these directors and radar dishes explained.
Having these videos has made this channel easily one of the most interesting of any that I view and I view a lot of them. Having so much detail makes the entire ship so much more interesting. My dad was an engineering officer on several US Navy ships and he used to take me with him on board many times when I was a kid. He would be able to do this when the ship was in port and he was home. We would go down to the shipyard in the evening after dinner and he would take me below to see the engine rooms and many other things. I would just stare at things and was amazed at all the stuff that is on a ship, just like we see here. Dad would try and explain but I would just keep looking at everything wondering how all this worked. It was a great experience for a child that was 9 to about 15 years old. He was on a couple of destroyers, an aircraft carrier and a guided missile cruiser. I remember things being very cramped, just like on this ship. Great video and please keep them coming.
Ryan - you are so impressive - perfect choice as Curator. Thank you for such quality videos - not sure how you can present, in what seems like ad lib, for 30 - 40 minutes...! Wayne Greenleaf, 4th Division Officer, USS NJ, Vietnam
Fun fact: Drachinefel in his dry dock episode 139 states that the British wanted Mark 37 for any ship they wanted to do anti aircraft duties with. The mark 37 was just that good. Great presentation as always Ryan. It is great to know what something is but you manage to bring it to life and make it more accessible.
In the mid 90s I worked on Counter battery Radar, that did the opposite of fire control computer. The radar looked at a shell in flight and calculated where it cam from. That was about the time that computing with sufficient accuracy could solve the equations in software fast enough with sufficient accuracy in a fairly compact militarized system. Earlier generations had analog electronics and electromechanical systems to do the calculations.
@@philgiglio7922 Yes, In Operation Dessert Storm, Iraqi Armillary would fire and get blown up by an f16 vectored to the guns location before the first shell landed from a gun, The Iraqis would abandn the Gun implacements after 2 or 3 guns were destroyed. The System I worked on was the Sucessor the model used in Dessert Storm.
I went to FT (fire control) school at Great Lakes, back in 1963. We learned about the Mk 37 system and the Mark 1A computer. However, I only served on ships that had later level fire control systems.
I really enjoyed the older gentlemen give us the "in the trenches" walkthrough. For some reason, this video and the topic itself got a lot more serious for me after he mentioned Marines on the beach spotting the fire. In the belly of the ship, behind armor and dials, it can almost feel like a game, detached from reality. You can easily forget that if those guns are firing, all hell is breaking loose on the other end.
What amazes me is how long it takes to design a ship now. These BB's were designed and put to service relatively quick compared to today's standards. And they WORKED!
Most of these ships had already been designed and the blueprints drawn up when the US entered the war. The shipyards just needed Congress' and the Navy's approval and money to start laying them down. Also, like good architects, ship design firms and the Bureau of Ships are constantly making plans and designs for future ships and have a contingency folder of plans to be authorized to be built in case of national emergency.
The term in missile ships for the daily status tests of weapon system equipment was "Daily System Operability Test" (DSOT). Basically, telling the Captain the answer to the question, "is it soup yet?" Digital computers made this A LOT more detailed and thorough.
Just looked ya up.. and saw you are a fella marylander... good work and thank you for the passion you take in history! Ww2 is one of my passions even though adult life has taken priority!
USS North Carolina BB-55 was hit by friendly fire (5in 38 shell) in its aft director. The welding repair patch to is still visible. It’s neat to see what is inside these.
USS Alabama. Starboard side 2 or 3 (hazy weekend in Gulf Shores) 5" turret has a plugged hole on the upper left rear plate from a 5" friendly fire incident.
Check out the dents and gouges on the superstructure behind Mount 5. The 5" mounts were tracking a target under director control as the ship turned. Someone in #9 disabled the safety cutout, and fired directly into the back of #5.
@MRGRUMPY53 21 Feb 1944- 5 men killed. On a lighter note, there's a bullet hole down on second deck aft near the small galley- a sailor almost took out the ice cream machine on accident. If you visit, make sure to ask one of the museum staff!
I've been hoping for a video on this topic. Thank you for making this BBNJ staff, and for all the other great content you create. Looking forward to visiting.
Ryan, until I saw this excellent video of yours, I didn't know how complex it was to fire NEW JERSEY'S guns. When I play World Of Warships and any other naval battle games in the future, I will know that it took more than just loading the gun, step back, put your fingers in your ears, grab the lanyard (or, as in the case of WWII battle-wagons, pull the trigger mechanism) and fire. It took much more skill than that.
Early 70's on LPH-7 took 6 triggers to fire the 3" 50 in anti-air practice. Director, CIC, Radar Operator, Gun Captain, Safety Officer, GM . The last to squeeze actually fired. Usually in director controlled it was the director operator, Local Control was the GM. Lots of cussing when it was the safety officer.
Two things: cross-level was ach I eved by an additional crewman with a scope looking at the horizon out the side of the director, not using a second director watching the horizon. This was replaced by the stable element. Second, by 1945 additional Mk 51 directors (originally for Bofors mounts) were added to achieve an AA director for each 5" Mount. These were replaced by 6 Mk 56 directors late in 45
The Iowa, Colorado, Tennessee and New Mexico Class battleships were the core of our BB fleet in WWII. Firing 14" and 16" inch AP & HE shells, they used radar and an analog electro mechanical fire control system to fire their main guns. The 5" 38 caliber secondary guns used a smaller, similar director system. The big guns were mainly used for ship to shore bombardment of the Pacific Islands before Marine & Army forces landed on the beaches, even providing fire support as ground forces advanced. However the trajectory of the main guns is fairly flat, being less effective against bamboo log & cement emplacements built by Imperial Japanese troops. The big shells needed to land downward at right angle to the target for best impact. Indeed, after taking islands there were crews assigned to clear the unexploded shells. Later in the war the Navy designed ship based rocket launchers to saturate a target area.
And there's also a "B-scope" which is the type of display on most air to air radars from the cold war days. The "B sweep" is a vertical line that sweeps from side to side. The bottom of the scope is the nose of the aircraft and the top of the the scope is whatever the maximum range for the selected range scale. A target is represented by a bright spot on the B sweep and the antenna's elevation is indicated by a little bar on the side of the display that moves up and down in relation to the antenna's elevation.
@@Mishn0 Never dealt with those, though the E-scope for height finders was essentially a B-scope that displayed range vs elevation instead of range vs azimuth. Spent most of my career in airfield radar, so the displays I normally dealt with were PPI, and Beta-scope for the precision approach radars.
@@strathadam1 My MOS was "Airborne Fire Control Mechanic, F-4N". Flight line level Phantom radar tweaker. Our APQ-72 search and track radar had a B scope display. I think pretty much every fighter from the mid '50s until they quit using raw video and CRTs were B scopes. Even the new flat screen computer displays I think use the same display format except that it's not raw video any more, all computer processed data displays.
@@Mishn0 Mine was "Heavy Radar & Navigational Aids Technician". So, search and height finder (with related processing equipment) on the air defense side, and ASR/SSR/PAR/TACAN/ILS on the NavAids side of the trade.
The actual computing is all mechanical on this from what I understand. The electrical stuff would be the raw data inputs then put into the mechanical system ( computers) for a solution. The output transferred to the electrical parts to train / direct the proper solution as well as fuze setting to the gun mounts. The computer itself is a mass of gears, cams levers and associated gear to actually do the calculation.
what will really blow your mind is when you realize that modern computer chips have billions of switches on them and the two perform the exact same process, just one takes 16 people to accomplish.
It's easy to find information on the maximum range that New Jerseys 16" main and 5" secondary batteries can engage---but what about minimum ranges? How close do smaller targets have to get to duck inside of the 16" and 5" guns? I would imagine that it's a combination how much gun depression is available at any given gun barbette/mount, how fast and the direction of movement of the target, the minimum range of the aiming system being used (radar, optical, etc), and in the case of an explosive projectile, the minimum arming distance (the distance the round has to travel before the safeties allow it to arm).
Another great video. Good work. Suggestion,, I'm wondering in future vids if you can add orientation to the space you are standing? aft port, bow starboard. Would only need two directions. Just helps the viewers spacial awarness and adds to our virtual reality. Thanks for all your hard work. I do notice a arms race now (the other museume ship sites are posting more youtube content) A good thing.
All of that redundancy brings smiles to the contractor as the number of combinations escalates so does the price! Massive testing, design revisions, innovation, and happenstance all contribute to the cost of millions of dollars, but money is well spent.
i was on the uss salamonie ao 26 we had the same setup as a fletcher class destroyer. two five inch 38's forward and one aft. my memory has faded a bit however the director could turn two revolutions. there was a dog that would flip over and on the second turn it would stop the rotation. i always found it very interesting the optical range finder was made by i b m where the computer was made by ford instrument co. another point of interest ---the radar consol had a jack in which a telegraph key could be plugged in to send morse code in a line of sight ship to ship reducing the chances of being intercepted.
I read somewhere that the directors had an Automatic setting that would electrically adjust bearing from the computer solution. Then if your crosshairs continued to stay on the target then you knew the computer was plotting a good solution.
Not quite, the Mk 25 radar could "lock on" to a target and using the radar could keep the crosshairs fixed on the target. Used to call "Locked on and tracking" Was controlled from the rear radar position in the Director by a foot switch.
@@mikeflanagan3799 You misunderstood. I was saying the director could take the predicted output from the targeting computer and use this data to steer itself. This is data the computer is predicting, if the predicted data cause the bearing crosshairs to stay on target, then you knew the computer had a good solution.
@@billwit7878 I believe you are thinking of the torpedo targeting computer on US submarines during WWII, the computer would do it's thing after all the information was inputted, then the periscope would be raised after it was done and if it was still on the target then you were ready to fire torpedoes.
@@keeganolsen1616 I'm referring to chapter on the Mark 37 gun director in the book "Naval Ordnance and Gunnery" where the COMPUTER OUTPUTS solutions for the DIRECTOR to point. If the Mark 37 DIRECTOR decided to switch over being controlled by these Computer solutions that gets used as a double check that the computer solution is a good one. If you switch the DIRECTOR over to the Computer Solution controls and your Director crosshairs fall off the target then you know your computer solution is generating a bad firing solution. The Mark 1 Computer would generate a DIRECTOR pointing solution for Delta increments of Elevation, Range and Train. These outputs could be used to "direct" the Director.
I was a FTG2 on the John R. Craig DD-885 from 66 to 69, made three WestPac cruises and don't remember anything about the Mk1A being able to control the positions of the director, @@billwit7878
1.5" STS or Class "B" armor is enough to stop the sideways-thrown fragments from a close near-miss 16" or smaller AP round that blows up due to fuze action while still in or adjacent to the ship after it has hit a 1" or so (depends on the fuze design) steel plate and its delay action has run down. In many cases, for exposed items like the 5" gun mounts or the various directors, a round that hits the upper part of the ship with little or no armor will not remain very near the ship before it goes off, unless it is fired lengthwise down the ship. The heavy, few-in-number nose fragments of an AP shell will only slowly spread out and, though capable of punching through rather thicker armor-steel plate than the 1.5" noted here, are rarely going to remain in the superstructure as a narrow conical jet; usually just shooting away from the ship. Large HE rounds with impact nose fuzes will go off immediately and their sideways-thrown tiny fragments are going much faster than those of an AP round due to the much larger explosive charge in an HE shell, so the 1.5" protection on the Mark 37 directors will not be enough unless the blast is some distance away and the fragments are slowed down by air resistance. There is no heavy nose fragment jet in this case, only a few pieces of somewhat larger fragments of the long steel pointed nose of the HE shell with rather little penetration ability. A direct hit on a director or 5" gun mount by any of these large shells, HE or AP, will most probably destroy it, of course.
To the teams that designed these mechanical “computers” long before electronic units became available, just WOW! I don’t want to think about the gears in these units.
ft FTG2 USS Dixie AD-14 USN 1963-1967/ 3 WESTPAC Cruises / on Yankee Station during one. .Member of The Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club. My GQ Station was Pointer in the Gun Fire Director, /MK 37 Gun Fire Control system. Dixie was running Plane Guard and Search and Rescue on Condition 3 on Yankee Station and we left for Subic Bay just before the USS Forrestal Disaster on 29 July, 1967 that killed 134 Sailors!
I have a question, would multiple directors point at a single target like a surface vessel at 3 o’clock would 3 of the directors focus on that to coordinate range? You mentioned American commanders and radar, can we hope for a video on “Ching” Lee and the USS Washington?
Much like the Pollen system, the director input directly into the computer, developing a solution much more quickly than systems with Men in the loop (which is how one combined range information from multiple sources), like the British or hod forbid, Japanese (Rube Goldberg) systems. When radar was added, this allowed continous imput instead of periodic cuts from the visual rangefinders, and sped up the dolution time incredibly. At Surigao, US systems had solutions in seconds.
It's fascinating how pre electronic computers work and what they're capable of, thanks for the video. It'd be interesting to have the entire fire control process explained (as in how you go from an officer wanting to hit a target to shells leaving barrels). With the 5" guns would they generally fire in salvos or was the system capable of keeping a constant solution to allow individual turrets to fire as they've reloaded.
What required a whole room of electro-mechanical devices and 16 people, could now be done on any handheld computing device and a few solid state sensors.
Hey Ryan, very nice video! Can you please tell us a little bit about what happened to the switchboards and gun directors of the 5inch guns after they removed some of them for the missile systems? Thanks in advance.
Did the star shells have parachutes ? I have what I think is one. It is packed in a cardboard cylinder. The cylinder is 4 3/4" in diameter and 13 1/4" long. Written on it is a Lt Commander Howard's name and "Guam Gun Club 3-18-46"
USS Alabama BB 60 in WW2 - During a Japanese air attack on the fleet on 21 February, Alabama's No. 9 5-inch turret accidentally fired into the No. 5 mount, killing five and wounding eleven men. That day, Alabama took part in a sweep to the southeast of Saipan to search for Japanese vessels that might be in the area. There is a plaque on the gun mount in Mobile, Alabama as a memorial to the men that lost their lives due to friendly fire.
@@philgiglio7922 If you see this Y-tube it is shown at the 3:35 sec. mark on gun mount: ua-cam.com/video/RdP5LsBDf04/v-deo.html. My dad who passed in 2017 at age 92 served on USS Louisville CA 28 from 1943-46 and we would always make sure to see the plaque. My dad witnessed (52) sailors and Rear Admiral Theodore Chandler buried at sea due to (3) kamikaze hits in the Pacific. One main 8 inch 55 caliber gun turret found in Nevada Desert (damaged orig. by kamikaze) in 2015 used for atomic bomb testing. Take care!
So under typically conditions, are the gun computers controlling the bearing and elevation of the guns, or does it just relay information to the turrets the the gun crew aim for?
The mounts could also be operated in "follow the pointer" local mode, where the computers supply the data on the bearing and range dials, but the crew has to steer the guns to match. If power is lost, they could be hand-cranked in manual mode.
When I manage to make it out there to the opposite coast and tour your ship, I have my $1,000 saved up to drop on a couple of live fire's. In re the subject: The engineers that figured out that electro-mechanical computer were absolute geniuses. To get the cams, gearing, etc all figured out, to successfully compute range, range rate, bearing, lead angle, dead time in the fuse setting, etc and be able to hit aircraft moving at 250+ knots at 10,000 yards with those 5" / 38's.....well, those of us using modern electronic computing bow down to them.
And to the people who made thousands of the cams, gears, and shafts to such a close tolerance that made the directors and Mk1A work way before CNC machining.
The fire control computer, the Norden bombsight, and the submarine's TDC we're all analog mechanical computer. The closest thing today is the Curta calculator: about the size of a clenched fist it could ÷, +, - and multiply
At least some of the ships do have moving directors though, for the primary batteries at least, dunno about secondaries. I can't tell you specific classes or names of ships that have it, since I uninstalled the game over 1.5 year ago (nothing to do with the game itself, that was still fun, I just got sick of the hyper-monetization and general scumminess of the company behind it), but I do remember noticing at one point or another and thinking that was a neat bit of attention to detail.
Ryan, on the 16 inch guns if a single turret fired a salvo, at some particular range, what was the expected “error” in their three actual hit points? And what about shots from different turrets aimed at a common target?
My father was on the Battleship Washington at the end of WWII (Operation Magic Carpet?). He said that there was a sledgehammer over the door to the fire computer room, and that if the ship was about to be lost, the standing order was to smash the computer and take as many parts as you could and throw them over the sides or with you as you jumped off the ship. I was wondering if there was a sledgehammer in the New Jersey over the door? Dad was not prone to making things up.
I actually had that somewhat happen to me. Was trying to get the MK25 up and running off the coast of VN when I accidentally hit one of the terminals with the tuning wand. Had the other hand on the metal door of the MK25 transmitter cabinet when my lights went out. Fortunately I had not shut that hatch so my legs buckled and wedged me that space which kept me from falling down thru to the bottom. When I regained my senses I heard the weapons officer in the front of the director hollering telling me that it is back online. Never admitted what had happened but my arms ached for a few days. @@ghost307
Would the Earth's rotation and distance from the Earth's equator be factors that affect trajectory accuracy as well? After moving from NC to NH I noticed I had to adjust slightly on the throne before dropping bombs or they'd cause collateral damage.
Friend was USA artillery trained officer, after serving as a WO helo pilot. He told me that, yes that has to be accounted for before pulling the trigger. Long range snipers also have to account for Coriolis forces
I would assume another 7se of the hand fire is if the ship has taken on water and can't get back to level, you have to be able to override the gyroscope
There is no fundamental difference between directing guns at ships or aerial targets, except that airplanes are not at the same height as you are, and move a lot faster than ships. Both require finding solutions in 4 dimensions (elevation, deflection, range & time of arrival). Ships also move a substantial distance during the time it takes a shell to cross the distance.
The many unsuccessful antiaircraft fire control systems of WWII (HACS, I'm looking at you) made the same mistake you just did. Surface targets move in two dimensions, aircraft move in three, so it is not JUST that they are moving at a different altitude, they are usually moving in altitude during their attack run. The US fire control systems uniquely took that into account from the early 1930s.
doesn't the delay of the automatic fire switch cause the firing solution to be invalid? Especially against aircraft which travel several hundred feet each second and can change heading by tens of degrees in a second?
No. If the director operators input that the target is flying at 200mph at bearing 216 range 5000 and altitude 3000, the rangekeeper part of the system creates a continuously updated fire control solution that accounts for target movement. I don't know enough about the director functions to tell you whether this is input by manually entering values using a dial or knob or such, or if the information is auto generated as the director operators simply keep crosshairs on a target. My guess would be this generation of equipment utilizes observation and dials/knobs vs auto generated. If observation/dials/knobs, then the accuracy of the system would of course be dependent upon the ability of the spotter to pick up the jukes and jinks of the aircraft and adjust his dial and knobs accordingly. OTOH, consider the flight paths of the types of planes that would be attacking the ship AND that would be the logical targets of the heavier more powerful 5 inch guns: dive bombers and torpedo bombers. They would typically be bigger, heavier, and slower so the 5 inch guns would be best utilized to shoot at them, and they have to fly in straight lines to aim and drop their ordnance, so they are going to be doing fewer gyrations than say a fighter looking to strafe the deck. The fighters have to get closer to shoot their smaller guns, so it stands to reason that the lighter, more nimble/responsive AA guns (40 and 20mm) would be prioritized to shoot at them.
I imagine having a battle station inside the armored citadel would be most desirable. Being inside a gun director would be one step up from an exposed 40 mm AA battery battle station.
Did the enemy try to target specific rooms/areas when they attacked or did they just try to generally hit the ship and hope that they hit something important?
@@ghost307 ignoring torpedoes, and air attacks - for gunnery only: going back to the age of sail, ships would choose their ammo type for specific targets: grape or cannister for crew, shot and double shot for hulls, and chain shot for masts and sails. Each ammo type could end fights: with no crew, the ship would stop fighting topside and expose the ship to capture, hull shots take out guns and allow the ocean in, and without masts and sails, the ship would be dead in the water. For naval gunnery during WW2, the principles are the same: kill the crew, take out the guns, bust the sides open and let the ocean in, and stop the propulsion or steering system. For long range fighting (plunging fire) was "hope to hit something important," but as ranges decreased, specific vital areas would be targeted. the armored belt or waterline was most lethal, and was the preferred target. In the Battle of Samar, the guns of the American DDs and DEs could not penetrate the armored belt of Japanese BBs, so they intentionally raked the superstructures killing crewmen. A review of the battles of Surigao Strait, Bismarck vs Hood, and those around Guadalcanal prove the waterline hits to be most devastating. So the doctrine of the day dictated that if the enemy presented his broadside to your guns, then you target the armored belt and waterline. if your guns were inferior and unable to defeat the armored belt, then you aim for the superstructure (and hope you hit something important)
@@pizzafrenzyman Thanks for the detailed response. I would imagine that the crew's adrenaline levels increased rapidly as a function of how close the enemy got.
@@ghost307 The crew below decks would have no idea, but I'm sure they heard the guns, and felt hits throughout other parts of the ship. Most surface actions took place at night, which must have been quite a spectacle for those above deck. At Samar, a daylight engagement, the Japanese were using dye markers in their shells, which was another sight to behold with purple, blue, green, red, etc splashes. The sheer carnage of naval surface actions which turns men into a pile shredded flesh is a testament to the nickname given to all sailors: "Iron Men"
How about an open man powered director, controlling a 40 mm in WW-II or a 3" or Point Defense missile system in the 70's. Something I learned on BB NC was the 5" preferred to be controlled from a man powered instead of the Mark 37 not as rough a ride.
Switchboards are world's unto themselves. Some of those switches have multiple wafers that switch A LOT of circuits with one click. All sorts of backups and alternate power and control circuits are possible. Somebody has to memorize what switch does what for use at a moment's notice. And many of the switches are important for life and death situations. Big deal!
20mm, no- there is no input available. Later 20mm had their own gyroscopic sights. 40mm were usually controlled via the Mk.51 directors nearby (the little splinter shield tubs near the guns). That means they don't get the benefit of the computers compensating for wind, ship speed, Coriolis effect etc but at anti-aircraft ranges it's good enough. The NavWeaps website implies the 40mm could be connected to the Mk1A somehow but I haven't seen that anywhere else. If someone has info on that I'm all ears.
@@PhantomP63 I have seen videos of the 40mm in use with the gyroscopic site but no explanation of the site. Would like to see that from a technical side.
the number 1 biggest improvement for US radar systems in WWII was when the UK gave the US the UK's radar technology, it is said the most valuable cargo to ever be shipped to US shores was the UK's cavity magnetron.
@@grathian but the Delhi still used the much superior British radar systems. which was fitted after the March to November refit in Brooklyn NY. the fire control systems where also replaced on 15 Feb 1942, it had been on sea trails all of 1941.
@@johng.1703 The British had given up on attempting a proximity fuse for gunnery when they showed there work to the Americans. The Americans promptly solved the problems of miniaturization and shock tolerance that stumped the Brits and mass produced the proximity fuse.
In the early 70s, I was the gunnery officer on the USS Douglas H. Fox (DD-779). I had both firecontrolmen and gunner's mates in my Division. We had one Mk. 37 director with a Mk. 25 radar and three 5"/38 gun mounts, two forward and one aft, six guns in all. My GQ station was in the director.
In theory, the system still had anti-air capability, but the speed of modern aircraft exceeded the tracking capabilities of the Mk-1A computer in the lateral plane. The Mk. 25 radar in our ship had something called RSPE, or "Radar Signal Processing Equipment," to assist the radar in acquiring and tracking a target, but we had an early version of it, and it didn't integrate well with the vacuum tube parts of the radar system that dated from WWII/the Korean War era. Also, the wiring for the radar system was so brittle, and the tubes themselves so vulnerable to breaking due to the strong concussion when the 5" guns fired, (especially in the closest mount, Mt. 52) that often only a salvo or two would cause the radar to fail due to broken wires or tubes. It was functionally useless for anti-air warfare.
Also, and I say this based on personal experience, the sailors, chiefs, and officers operating the gunfire control system and the gun mounts were literally cogs in a machine. This WWII technology was limited, and men had to fill in many of the gaps that the technology couldn't handle. Also, at my station in the director, I had a power elevation and train control that slewed the director around quickly, but I couldn't use it if the mounts were in "automatic" control mode, because the gun mounts would rotate wildly in sync with my movements, and the gun crews could be rattled in the inside of the mounts like peas in a pod, causing injuries. Usually what happened was that (1) I would slew the director in the direction of a target with my power control while the guns were in local control; (2) the elevator and train operators would acquire the target visually through optics, or the radar would electronically acquire it, and tracking would start, (3) the data would go down to the Mk. 1A computer and when the computer would have enough info to generate a gunfire solution, the P.O. at the computer would yell "target solution" over the intercom, and I would order the gun mounts to go into automatic mode so that their barrels would point where the computer said we would hit the target.
All this took time. I can only say that we in the early 1970s had only a fraction of the training time that WWII vets had, and my hat is off to them for the incredible amount of practice they had to put in to become proficient with this cumbersome system. Of course they did because their lives depended on it, but still . . .
One day when our ship was in Canadian waters and we were at GQ for an unrelated practice, a Canadian S-2 Grumman Tracker snuck up on us and buzzed the ship at a fairly low altitude. It came and went before anyone was the wiser in CIC, and I was greatly chagrined at how poorly I reacted when I caught sight of the aircraft. It was gone so fast, and before I could traverse the director to even begin to track it, that I felt we would have been dead meat had this been the real thing. And this A/C had what was basically a WWII design.
The only mission I felt our ship's guns could perform adequately was in naval gunfire support against land targets. We did Ok there in the Chesapeake Bay off Bloodsworth Island on one occasion. The counterbattery exercise was the only one where I could literally "pull the trigger" on the five-inch guns, and I have to say, it was a blast!
Always good to hear the real story from someone who has "been there, done that"! I didn't realize the mounts would move so quickly.
@@PhantomP63 The gun mounts had electro-hydraulic drives controlled by servos. And when they were put into "automatic" they did indeed move quickly! Don't get me wrong about the system in WWII. Especially with the proximity fuses, they were deadly. But I do believe the entire gunfire team, from ammo handlers in the magazines and in the upper "merry go round" handling rooms below the mounts, to the gun mount crews themselves, the FT's in the FT plotting room, and the FTs in the director with the director officer, all had to be trained so that their reactions were themselves "automatic." And they had to rely on info from CIC as well. And the thing was that the kamikazes were a one-man guidance system. DD-779 took some crippling hits from them off Okinawa, which knocked her out of the war. In the 70s when I was on the ship we saw some of the damage -- patched and welded-over holes in the main deck near Mount 53, so those attacks "left a mark" decades later.
@@Redhand1949
Wow, so interesting. Good to listen to the old hands' stories.
Thanks for sharing Brian !!
"The navy wanted a lighter director - so they made a new director and it ended up 2 tons heavier" - Sounds about right for DoD procurement. Evidently some things never change
Yeah, but at least in the end it was heavier but also superior with the same capabilities plus some. Not so much a dig on them as just kind of how things work. Hah
More like. Things stays the same.
I was a Fire Control Technician (Guns) I tried to get on New Jersey in 1968, but was late to the party as she was decommissioned in 69. I went to USS Oriskany CVA-34 and spent 4 years maintaining the forward Mk25 radar and Mk 37 director. I left the ship as an FTG1. Good memories. Thanks for this video, it brought it back to me.
I started as an FTG in 82. They changed FTG and FTM into FC about 84/85.
@@DaveDaDeerslayer Who maintains the switchboards in the FC spaces? Layout appears to be same as an IC switchboard with power/metering/ACO sections. As an aside, for your trip down memory lane, does "12AX7" have meaning for you?
Didn't she have two bridges
@@kevincrosby1760 one of many tubes in the system I believe.
@@frankbodenschatz173 Used in everything from the Mk 19 Gyro Control Cabinet to the Synch-Amps to the sound-powered phone amps.
From the number of them that the FCs would come down to borrow, I'm assuming that they were quite common in the Sea Sparrow gear as well.
The term "taking a hit" has a serious connotation that we tend not to think about. Some very brave sailors worked in these spaces.
You're right about that. It's hard to imagine what the mood in that room would have been in battle with the noise of the men, machinery & guns along with the listing of the ship turning at full steam. It's a wild contrast to see that room so quiet & sterile as a museum given the environment it was built for
Why do we need to know Geometry and trigonometry? If my teachers had answered "Fire control solutions" I would have shut up and worked at least 1.5x harder on learning the material.
That might encourage boys to succeed and they can't have that nowadays.
Once when I was laying the guns for direction a soldier asked me what is the principle for doing this? I told him it was high school geometry. Two parallel lines intersected by a traversing line, the alternate interior angles are equal (or words to that effect). He smiled and said "finally getting to use geometry." Same thing for the optical range finders. High school geometry. Thank you Mr. Sapko, you taught me skills that lasted a lifetime.
In my High School English 1A class I did a report on "The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1783" by Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, just to P.O. the teacher. It was rather dry reading... I did manage to pass my Navy E-5 tests for Gun Fire Control Technician with just High School Geometry and OJT.
Another thing I would tell the students is that math itself is much like the battleship: there are a few parts that directly apply to something that already interests you (like the big guns), but the whole ship needs to be there for it to work, even the "boring" parts like storage lockers and void spaces. Likewise, there are a few applications of mathematics that already interest you, but we need the whole subject to make those parts work.
My algebra 2 and calculus teacher actually was in the US Navy during the Vietnam War, and did cite “destroying Vietnam” in class as a practical extension of what we were learning. I still remember it over 20 years later.
What a fantastic description and right on show of how it worked. Glad to see my old Gun Mount 51 is still there. In Viet Nam. Forward Mounts Starboard side 51,53,55 were usually controlled by Starboard Director and 57,59 by Aft. Director. Portside Forward Mounts 50.52.54 by Forward Director and 56, 58 By Portside Director. For both Surface action and Air Action. Many thanks go to that Chief for his descriptions of Plot. GMG2 Shaw 5th. Div. Viet Nam era.
Feel free to encourage the Texas to start a channel like this as well!!!
I would too, but I'd first encourage them to start preserving it better, like dry-docking it.
@@breadbug6101 although I've seen some statements (partly various videos from this channel that go over some of the issues of putting these ships in concrete or on dry land) that Texas is to big and old for a permanent dry-docking, that the dry-dock would place significant pressure on Texas' hull, as such great risks would be taken, partly because its not really something that has been truly done before. One of the largest museum warships in dry-dock, would be the HMS Victory, much older, but of an entirely different construction in comparison to Texas. The closest we would have to what a dry-docked Texas could look like is the predreadnought Mikasa, older but quite a bit smaller and lighter than Texas, but of a more similar construction.
Another issue is funding, Texas would require a dry-dock specifically designed to support her weight, that would require money, and unfortunately if they're struggling to raise the funds necessary to properly maintain Texas, the sad reality is that they're probably going to struggle to raise the funds needed to build a permanent dry-dock. Who knows, Texas might need further repairs by the time they might get the necessary money to build a Dry-dock, let alone maintain it.
Mark D check out the channel Tom Scott the older one and you will have all the In depth texas videos you crave!
@@navalhistoryhub3748 Just discovered him. I really love the technical details.
@@Trebuchet48 i have watched it grow from double digit subs to what it is now and nobody deserves it more than these guys! The content they put out is always on point and Ryan gets better with every video.
Ryan your delivery has become much smoother, please take this as only as a compliment. You seem more comfortable with your video presence recently. These videos are terrific and informative.
Yes, he hss gotten better over the last year. But as great as he is , the real star is the New Jersey!! Nothing wrong with second fiddle though!
The tube that supports the director is called a "Barbette". I worked on the MK37's successor system the MK68 which had a much-improved computer, radar & director. The MK68 GFCS (Gun Fire Control System) used the AN/SPG-53 radar which used the same radar dish and nutating feedhorn as the MK25 radar of the MK37 system. The only major update I remember to MK37 between 1950 and End of Life was the addition of Radar Signal Processing Equipment (RSPE, pronounced RIS PEE). RSPE was a digital solid-state add-on that automated the acquisition and tracking of radar targets by the MK25 radar. RSPE also used with the AN/SPG-53 radar. The AN-SPG53 radar of the MK68 system was a highly improved version of the MK25 using many of the same parts. I believe MK25 radar could track targets out to 100,000 yards and the AN/SPG-53 could track out to 120, 000 yards. When they re-packaged and upgraded MK25 to AN-SPG53 they moved the tracking scopes into a console in the main battery plotting room (Gun Plot) taking them out of the director which allowed them to make the MK-68 director about half the size of the MK37 director. That box you are resting your hands near (approx 14:45) with the two open doors at the back of the director below the salvo alarm is the Reciever/Transmitter unit for the radar. It had to be near the radar dish to shorten the radar waveguide for maximum radar receiver efficiency. The Mark1 computer was a marvel in its day, but it was a bear to repair. Disassembly, repair, and reassembly were no mean feat and could take the better part of a day. Star shells in the age of radar were primarily used to illuminate the target area ashore for USMC troops engaged in Naval Gun Fire support. Radars kind of killed the use of searchlights and star shells during surface engagements. And yes! rule number one of tracer ammunition and searchlights is that they work both ways! (FTG1(SW).
Knox Class DE/FF had the AN/SPG-53A radar then upgraded to the AN/SPG-53F radar. Basically most the analog components of Mk68 system were replaced with digital.
Linguistically it's NOT a barbette unless it's supporting a gun housing/turret. Ryan has mentioned the barbettes of the main turrets in many videos.
Doesn't mean the crew didn't call it one, but technically it isn't, LOL.
Love the video of the "old salt" who tells the story from his days. He sounds exactly like my dad and my late grandfather. Bet he's from Staten Island. : )
Yeah, I was thinking "well, we're obviously in the Brooklyn Naval Yard with this guy."
I really liked the detail in this video. Every so often a longer, more in depth video is a really good thing.
ua-cam.com/video/gwf5mAlI7Ug/v-deo.html
I just want to say that I am such a fan of your channel..... SO interesting and informative, and concisely so. For example, in this video, I like how you spelled out the elaborate redundancy of the 5" gun systems alone, and the purpose of the redundancy. And like another commenter said, I love the older guy's description from back on his time on the ship. That footage was mixed in very well. Thanks for doing all this!!
Glad to have you with us!
Just visited the USS South Dakota BB-57 memorial. They have a Mark 4 director on display at their memorial in Sioux Falls SD. It’s great to hear these directors and radar dishes explained.
Having these videos has made this channel easily one of the most interesting of any that I view and I view a lot of them. Having so much detail makes the entire ship so much more interesting. My dad was an engineering officer on several US Navy ships and he used to take me with him on board many times when I was a kid. He would be able to do this when the ship was in port and he was home. We would go down to the shipyard in the evening after dinner and he would take me below to see the engine rooms and many other things. I would just stare at things and was amazed at all the stuff that is on a ship, just like we see here. Dad would try and explain but I would just keep looking at everything wondering how all this worked. It was a great experience for a child that was 9 to about 15 years old. He was on a couple of destroyers, an aircraft carrier and a guided missile cruiser. I remember things being very cramped, just like on this ship. Great video and please keep them coming.
Ryan - you are so impressive - perfect choice as Curator. Thank you for such quality videos - not sure how you can present, in what seems like ad lib, for 30 - 40 minutes...! Wayne Greenleaf, 4th Division Officer, USS NJ,
Vietnam
He just knows a lot about ships
Fun fact: Drachinefel in his dry dock episode 139 states that the British wanted Mark 37 for any ship they wanted to do anti aircraft duties with. The mark 37 was just that good.
Great presentation as always Ryan. It is great to know what something is but you manage to bring it to life and make it more accessible.
In the mid 90s I worked on Counter battery Radar, that did the opposite of fire control computer. The radar looked at a shell in flight and calculated where it cam from. That was about the time that computing with sufficient accuracy could solve the equations in software fast enough with sufficient accuracy in a fairly compact militarized system. Earlier generations had analog electronics and electromechanical systems to do the calculations.
Counter battery fire should have rounds out before the first round fired at you land
@@philgiglio7922 Yes, In Operation Dessert Storm, Iraqi Armillary would fire and get blown up by an f16 vectored to the guns location before the first shell landed from a gun, The Iraqis would abandn the Gun implacements after 2 or 3 guns were destroyed. The System I worked on was the Sucessor the model used in Dessert Storm.
I was a CIWS FC. Pretty good to see all this stuff. I never trained on it. Really well built stuff.
I went to FT (fire control) school at Great Lakes, back in 1963. We learned about the Mk 37 system and the Mark 1A computer. However, I only served on ships that had later level fire control systems.
I really enjoyed the older gentlemen give us the "in the trenches" walkthrough. For some reason, this video and the topic itself got a lot more serious for me after he mentioned Marines on the beach spotting the fire. In the belly of the ship, behind armor and dials, it can almost feel like a game, detached from reality. You can easily forget that if those guns are firing, all hell is breaking loose on the other end.
Unless you are also a target
My dad helped to upgrade the follow-on upgrades to the gun systems after 1940. Way to go pop!.
P.S. : a great presentation with fine detail. Thanks!
Most battleships quote ever: ONLY 1.5 inches of armor.
What amazes me is how long it takes to design a ship now. These BB's were designed and put to service relatively quick compared to today's standards. And they WORKED!
Most of these ships had already been designed and the blueprints drawn up when the US entered the war. The shipyards just needed Congress' and the Navy's approval and money to start laying them down. Also, like good architects, ship design firms and the Bureau of Ships are constantly making plans and designs for future ships and have a contingency folder of plans to be authorized to be built in case of national emergency.
This was outstanding. Thank you
Thank you for the videos. It is important to learn about the past, and its technology. A friend of mine was on the Mo, and it was the best.
Really great work breaking down a complex system.
Guys like that is why we are still free he is still doing it for us even if it is just to understand good health and good luck to you guys
The term in missile ships for the daily status tests of weapon system equipment was "Daily System Operability Test" (DSOT). Basically, telling the Captain the answer to the question, "is it soup yet?" Digital computers made this A LOT more detailed and thorough.
This is a fab channel which provides such interesting info. Thanks
Excellent presentation. Thank You.
Just looked ya up.. and saw you are a fella marylander... good work and thank you for the passion you take in history! Ww2 is one of my passions even though adult life has taken priority!
USS North Carolina BB-55 was hit by friendly fire (5in 38 shell) in its aft director. The welding repair patch to is still visible. It’s neat to see what is inside these.
USS Alabama. Starboard side 2 or 3 (hazy weekend in Gulf Shores) 5" turret has a plugged hole on the upper left rear plate from a 5" friendly fire incident.
@@markwilliams2620 I've been on the Alabama twice. Next time I go I'm going to look for it.
Check out the dents and gouges on the superstructure behind Mount 5. The 5" mounts were tracking a target under director control as the ship turned. Someone in #9 disabled the safety cutout, and fired directly into the back of #5.
How that FF happened?
@MRGRUMPY53 21 Feb 1944- 5 men killed.
On a lighter note, there's a bullet hole down on second deck aft near the small galley- a sailor almost took out the ice cream machine on accident. If you visit, make sure to ask one of the museum staff!
I've been hoping for a video on this topic. Thank you for making this BBNJ staff, and for all the other great content you create. Looking forward to visiting.
Great video, thanks! As a former field and AD arty officer, love to see how the Navy did it.
Cool. This should answer some questions.
Ryan, until I saw this excellent video of yours, I didn't know how complex it was to fire NEW JERSEY'S guns. When I play World Of Warships and any other naval battle games in the future, I will know that it took more than just loading the gun, step back, put your fingers in your ears, grab the lanyard (or, as in the case of WWII battle-wagons, pull the trigger mechanism) and fire. It took much more skill than that.
Early 70's on LPH-7 took 6 triggers to fire the 3" 50 in anti-air practice. Director, CIC, Radar Operator, Gun Captain, Safety Officer, GM . The last to squeeze actually fired. Usually in director controlled it was the director operator, Local Control was the GM. Lots of cussing when it was the safety officer.
Two things: cross-level was ach I eved by an additional crewman with a scope looking at the horizon out the side of the director, not using a second director watching the horizon. This was replaced by the stable element.
Second, by 1945 additional Mk 51 directors (originally for Bofors mounts) were added to achieve an AA director for each 5" Mount. These were replaced by 6 Mk 56 directors late in 45
Only the shots that hit matter! Fire control is equally important as the guns themselves.
Very interesting video,good to see the navy at least plan in advance a spares spare in the case of breakdown.
The Iowa, Colorado, Tennessee and New Mexico Class battleships were the core of our BB fleet in WWII. Firing 14" and 16" inch AP & HE shells, they used radar and an analog electro mechanical fire control system to fire their main guns. The 5" 38 caliber secondary guns used a smaller, similar director system.
The big guns were mainly used for ship to shore bombardment of the Pacific Islands before Marine & Army forces landed on the beaches, even providing fire support as ground forces advanced. However the trajectory of the main guns is fairly flat, being less effective against bamboo log & cement emplacements built by Imperial Japanese troops. The big shells needed to land downward at right angle to the target for best impact.
Indeed, after taking islands there were crews assigned to clear the unexploded shells. Later in the war the Navy designed ship based rocket launchers to saturate a target area.
Thank you for your tours and informative videos.
Your EKG is an 'A-scope'. The top down radar view with the line that spins around is the PPI--Planned Position Indicator.
Former RCAF radar tech. Was just about to make essentially the same comment.
And there's also a "B-scope" which is the type of display on most air to air radars from the cold war days. The "B sweep" is a vertical line that sweeps from side to side. The bottom of the scope is the nose of the aircraft and the top of the the scope is whatever the maximum range for the selected range scale. A target is represented by a bright spot on the B sweep and the antenna's elevation is indicated by a little bar on the side of the display that moves up and down in relation to the antenna's elevation.
@@Mishn0 Never dealt with those, though the E-scope for height finders was essentially a B-scope that displayed range vs elevation instead of range vs azimuth. Spent most of my career in airfield radar, so the displays I normally dealt with were PPI, and Beta-scope for the precision approach radars.
@@strathadam1 My MOS was "Airborne Fire Control Mechanic, F-4N". Flight line level Phantom radar tweaker. Our APQ-72 search and track radar had a B scope display. I think pretty much every fighter from the mid '50s until they quit using raw video and CRTs were B scopes. Even the new flat screen computer displays I think use the same display format except that it's not raw video any more, all computer processed data displays.
@@Mishn0 Mine was "Heavy Radar & Navigational Aids Technician". So, search and height finder (with related processing equipment) on the air defense side, and ASR/SSR/PAR/TACAN/ILS on the NavAids side of the trade.
The actual computing is all mechanical on this from what I understand. The electrical stuff would be the raw data inputs then put into the mechanical system ( computers) for a solution. The output transferred to the electrical parts to train / direct the proper solution as well as fuze setting to the gun mounts. The computer itself is a mass of gears, cams levers and associated gear to actually do the calculation.
The TDC in subs was the same...and No TDC's failed because of being rattled around by depth charges.
Redundancy is definitely the word of the day. Thanks, Ryan!
It's the Redundancy Department of Redundancy
With all the switches and lever in that room, it looks more like its part of a power station than part of a ship. XD
what will really blow your mind is when you realize that modern computer chips have billions of switches on them and the two perform the exact same process, just one takes 16 people to accomplish.
Thanks so much for this interesting video!
I would love to hear a live stream of you and Drachinifel discussing Naval matters.....
It's easy to find information on the maximum range that New Jerseys 16" main and 5" secondary batteries can engage---but what about minimum ranges? How close do smaller targets have to get to duck inside of the 16" and 5" guns? I would imagine that it's a combination how much gun depression is available at any given gun barbette/mount, how fast and the direction of movement of the target, the minimum range of the aiming system being used (radar, optical, etc), and in the case of an explosive projectile, the minimum arming distance (the distance the round has to travel before the safeties allow it to arm).
Another great video. Good work. Suggestion,, I'm wondering in future vids if you can add orientation to the space you are standing? aft port, bow starboard. Would only need two directions. Just helps the viewers spacial awarness and adds to our virtual reality. Thanks for all your hard work. I do notice a arms race now (the other museume ship sites are posting more youtube content) A good thing.
Outstanding video, so much juicy detail.
All of that redundancy brings smiles to the contractor as the number of combinations escalates so does the price! Massive testing, design revisions, innovation, and happenstance all contribute to the cost of millions of dollars, but money is well spent.
i was on the uss salamonie ao 26 we had the same setup as a fletcher class destroyer. two five inch 38's forward and one aft. my memory has faded a bit however the director could turn two revolutions. there was a dog that would flip over and on the second turn it would stop the rotation.
i always found it very interesting the optical range finder was made by i b m where the computer was made by ford instrument co.
another point of interest ---the radar consol had a jack in which a telegraph key could be plugged in to send morse code in a line of sight ship to ship reducing the chances of being intercepted.
I read somewhere that the directors had an Automatic setting that would electrically adjust bearing from the computer solution. Then if your crosshairs continued to stay on the target then you knew the computer was plotting a good solution.
Not quite, the Mk 25 radar could "lock on" to a target and using the radar could keep the crosshairs fixed on the target. Used to call "Locked on and tracking" Was controlled from the rear radar position in the Director by a foot switch.
@@mikeflanagan3799 You misunderstood. I was saying the director could take the predicted output from the targeting computer and use this data to steer itself. This is data the computer is predicting, if the predicted data cause the bearing crosshairs to stay on target, then you knew the computer had a good solution.
@@billwit7878 I believe you are thinking of the torpedo targeting computer on US submarines during WWII, the computer would do it's thing after all the information was inputted, then the periscope would be raised after it was done and if it was still on the target then you were ready to fire torpedoes.
@@keeganolsen1616 I'm referring to chapter on the Mark 37 gun director in the book "Naval Ordnance and Gunnery" where the COMPUTER OUTPUTS solutions for the DIRECTOR to point. If the Mark 37 DIRECTOR decided to switch over being controlled by these Computer solutions that gets used as a double check that the computer solution is a good one. If you switch the DIRECTOR over to the Computer Solution controls and your Director crosshairs fall off the target then you know your computer solution is generating a bad firing solution. The Mark 1 Computer would generate a DIRECTOR pointing solution for Delta increments of Elevation, Range and Train. These outputs could be used to "direct" the Director.
I was a FTG2 on the John R. Craig DD-885 from 66 to 69, made three WestPac cruises and don't remember anything about the Mk1A being able to control the positions of the director, @@billwit7878
1.5" STS or Class "B" armor is enough to stop the sideways-thrown fragments from a close near-miss 16" or smaller AP round that blows up due to fuze action while still in or adjacent to the ship after it has hit a 1" or so (depends on the fuze design) steel plate and its delay action has run down. In many cases, for exposed items like the 5" gun mounts or the various directors, a round that hits the upper part of the ship with little or no armor will not remain very near the ship before it goes off, unless it is fired lengthwise down the ship. The heavy, few-in-number nose fragments of an AP shell will only slowly spread out and, though capable of punching through rather thicker armor-steel plate than the 1.5" noted here, are rarely going to remain in the superstructure as a narrow conical jet; usually just shooting away from the ship. Large HE rounds with impact nose fuzes will go off immediately and their sideways-thrown tiny fragments are going much faster than those of an AP round due to the much larger explosive charge in an HE shell, so the 1.5" protection on the Mark 37 directors will not be enough unless the blast is some distance away and the fragments are slowed down by air resistance. There is no heavy nose fragment jet in this case, only a few pieces of somewhat larger fragments of the long steel pointed nose of the HE shell with rather little penetration ability. A direct hit on a director or 5" gun mount by any of these large shells, HE or AP, will most probably destroy it, of course.
One thing I have not been able to find is, what was the ammunition capacity for the secondary battery guns? (as built)
Love the Docent from MA
Thanks. This is very informative and detailed
I can't believe they can fire so many rounds so quickly
To the teams that designed these mechanical “computers” long before electronic units became available, just WOW!
I don’t want to think about the gears in these units.
Gears, cams, & screws
ft
FTG2 USS Dixie AD-14 USN 1963-1967/ 3 WESTPAC Cruises / on Yankee Station during one. .Member of The Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club. My GQ Station was Pointer in the Gun Fire Director, /MK 37 Gun Fire Control system. Dixie was running Plane Guard and Search and Rescue on Condition 3 on Yankee Station and we left for Subic Bay just before the USS Forrestal Disaster on 29 July, 1967 that killed 134 Sailors!
I have a question, would multiple directors point at a single target like a surface vessel at 3 o’clock would 3 of the directors focus on that to coordinate range?
You mentioned American commanders and radar, can we hope for a video on “Ching” Lee and the USS Washington?
ua-cam.com/video/DsDm1-OIeq8/v-deo.html
Much like the Pollen system, the director input directly into the computer, developing a solution much more quickly than systems with Men in the loop (which is how one combined range information from multiple sources), like the British or hod forbid, Japanese (Rube Goldberg) systems.
When radar was added, this allowed continous imput instead of periodic cuts from the visual rangefinders, and sped up the dolution time incredibly. At Surigao, US systems had solutions in seconds.
Admiral Lee was also an Olympic level rifle and pistol shooter. He did more to improve gunnery in the USN than most people know
It's fascinating how pre electronic computers work and what they're capable of, thanks for the video.
It'd be interesting to have the entire fire control process explained (as in how you go from an officer wanting to hit a target to shells leaving barrels). With the 5" guns would they generally fire in salvos or was the system capable of keeping a constant solution to allow individual turrets to fire as they've reloaded.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Here's a couple more on how the computers worked ua-cam.com/video/gwf5mAlI7Ug/v-deo.html and ua-cam.com/video/s1i-dnAH9Y4/v-deo.html
What required a whole room of electro-mechanical devices and 16 people, could now be done on any handheld computing device and a few solid state sensors.
Hey Ryan, very nice video! Can you please tell us a little bit about what happened to the switchboards and gun directors of the 5inch guns after they removed some of them for the missile systems? Thanks in advance.
The host is getting better at his presentations. He was obviously an amature when he started making these videos.
Did the star shells have parachutes ? I have what I think is one. It is packed in a cardboard cylinder. The cylinder is 4 3/4" in diameter and 13 1/4" long. Written on it is a Lt Commander Howard's name and "Guam Gun Club 3-18-46"
USS Alabama BB 60 in WW2 - During a Japanese air attack on the fleet on 21 February, Alabama's No. 9 5-inch turret accidentally fired into the No. 5 mount, killing five and wounding eleven men. That day, Alabama took part in a sweep to the southeast of Saipan to search for Japanese vessels that might be in the area. There is a plaque on the gun mount in Mobile, Alabama as a memorial to the men that lost their lives due to friendly fire.
Been aboard her...but missed that. Plan on making another visit and will definitely check it out
@@philgiglio7922 If you see this Y-tube it is shown at the 3:35 sec. mark on gun mount: ua-cam.com/video/RdP5LsBDf04/v-deo.html. My dad who passed in 2017 at age 92 served on USS Louisville CA 28 from 1943-46 and we would always make sure to see the plaque. My dad witnessed (52) sailors and Rear Admiral Theodore Chandler buried at sea due to (3) kamikaze hits in the Pacific. One main 8 inch 55 caliber gun turret found in Nevada Desert (damaged orig. by kamikaze) in 2015 used for atomic bomb testing. Take care!
So under typically conditions, are the gun computers controlling the bearing and elevation of the guns, or does it just relay information to the turrets the the gun crew aim for?
That chief said plot controlled the guns in elevation & bearing.
The mounts could also be operated in "follow the pointer" local mode, where the computers supply the data on the bearing and range dials, but the crew has to steer the guns to match. If power is lost, they could be hand-cranked in manual mode.
When I manage to make it out there to the opposite coast and tour your ship, I have my $1,000 saved up to drop on a couple of live fire's. In re the subject: The engineers that figured out that electro-mechanical computer were absolute geniuses. To get the cams, gearing, etc all figured out, to successfully compute range, range rate, bearing, lead angle, dead time in the fuse setting, etc and be able to hit aircraft moving at 250+ knots at 10,000 yards with those 5" / 38's.....well, those of us using modern electronic computing bow down to them.
And to the people who made thousands of the cams, gears, and shafts to such a close tolerance that made the directors and Mk1A work way before CNC machining.
Yep. Stuff doesn't get done without teamwork between design and fabrication. If either doesn't hold up their end, the result is mission failure.
The fire control computer, the Norden bombsight, and the submarine's TDC we're all analog mechanical computer. The closest thing today is the Curta calculator: about the size of a clenched fist it could ÷, +, - and multiply
I have been told because our MK1A were analog they were sometime better than the digital ones.
Another great video
Despite the directors not moving in WoW, I still enjoy the game
Agreed we can forgive that one I think and still call it a "good" game :)
At least some of the ships do have moving directors though, for the primary batteries at least, dunno about secondaries. I can't tell you specific classes or names of ships that have it, since I uninstalled the game over 1.5 year ago (nothing to do with the game itself, that was still fun, I just got sick of the hyper-monetization and general scumminess of the company behind it), but I do remember noticing at one point or another and thinking that was a neat bit of attention to detail.
Steroscopic Range finders not only in the directors but the gun houses.
Thanks for the info it's what life on board was really like uss.`Norton sound tested fire "control systems very cool 70 72 USN
Have to hand to the guys that figured all this out
If they didn't get this working, what language would we be speaking?? Technology is great especially when it works, and works GREAT!!
Ryan, on the 16 inch guns if a single turret fired a salvo, at some particular range, what was the expected “error” in their three actual hit points? And what about shots from different turrets aimed at a common target?
16" guns: How is the powder charge actually ignited? I mean, there is no primer or firing pin. Could you do a brief video on this please? Thanks
Seem to recall he did...a blank cartridge about the size of a 30-06 round
My father was on the Battleship Washington at the end of WWII (Operation Magic Carpet?). He said that there was a sledgehammer over the door to the fire computer room, and that if the ship was about to be lost, the standing order was to smash the computer and take as many parts as you could and throw them over the sides or with you as you jumped off the ship. I was wondering if there was a sledgehammer in the New Jersey over the door? Dad was not prone to making things up.
Gotta wonder how many sailors fell through those hatches in the directors!
I was thinking the same thing if someone was in a hurry to do his job before swinging down the seat that's directly above the hole in the floor.
I actually had that somewhat happen to me. Was trying to get the MK25 up and running off the coast of VN when I accidentally hit one of the terminals with the tuning wand. Had the other hand on the metal door of the MK25 transmitter cabinet when my lights went out. Fortunately I had not shut that hatch so my legs buckled and wedged me that space which kept me from falling down thru to the bottom. When I regained my senses I heard the weapons officer in the front of the director hollering telling me that it is back online. Never admitted what had happened but my arms ached for a few days. @@ghost307
What are the smaller switches and what is behind the Perspex panel beside on the switchboard?
Would the Earth's rotation and distance from the Earth's equator be factors that affect trajectory accuracy as well? After moving from NC to NH I noticed I had to adjust slightly on the throne before dropping bombs or they'd cause collateral damage.
Friend was USA artillery trained officer, after serving as a WO helo pilot. He told me that, yes that has to be accounted for before pulling the trigger. Long range snipers also have to account for Coriolis forces
@@philgiglio7922 Appreciate the response.
If I recall, World of Warships has the directors turn with the guns at least for the main battery
If the Missile salvo light ever comes on - Hope you are good with ole' J.C. and pray like anything that there are dry rounds inside your pistol.
Great video, it explains a lot.
I would assume another 7se of the hand fire is if the ship has taken on water and can't get back to level, you have to be able to override the gyroscope
There is no fundamental difference between directing guns at ships or aerial targets, except that airplanes are not at the same height as you are, and move a lot faster than ships. Both require finding solutions in 4 dimensions (elevation, deflection, range & time of arrival). Ships also move a substantial distance during the time it takes a shell to cross the distance.
The many unsuccessful antiaircraft fire control systems of WWII (HACS, I'm looking at you) made the same mistake you just did. Surface targets move in two dimensions, aircraft move in three, so it is not JUST that they are moving at a different altitude, they are usually moving in altitude during their attack run. The US fire control systems uniquely took that into account from the early 1930s.
doesn't the delay of the automatic fire switch cause the firing solution to be invalid? Especially against aircraft which travel several hundred feet each second and can change heading by tens of degrees in a second?
No. If the director operators input that the target is flying at 200mph at bearing 216 range 5000 and altitude 3000, the rangekeeper part of the system creates a continuously updated fire control solution that accounts for target movement. I don't know enough about the director functions to tell you whether this is input by manually entering values using a dial or knob or such, or if the information is auto generated as the director operators simply keep crosshairs on a target. My guess would be this generation of equipment utilizes observation and dials/knobs vs auto generated. If observation/dials/knobs, then the accuracy of the system would of course be dependent upon the ability of the spotter to pick up the jukes and jinks of the aircraft and adjust his dial and knobs accordingly. OTOH, consider the flight paths of the types of planes that would be attacking the ship AND that would be the logical targets of the heavier more powerful 5 inch guns: dive bombers and torpedo bombers. They would typically be bigger, heavier, and slower so the 5 inch guns would be best utilized to shoot at them, and they have to fly in straight lines to aim and drop their ordnance, so they are going to be doing fewer gyrations than say a fighter looking to strafe the deck. The fighters have to get closer to shoot their smaller guns, so it stands to reason that the lighter, more nimble/responsive AA guns (40 and 20mm) would be prioritized to shoot at them.
@@SomeRandomHuman717 Thanks for your perspective.
Sooooo in the battleship where you have models and signs and stuff what where the rooms before it became a museum
Berthing compartments
Very interesting video.
Kinda related question...What actually detonates the powder bags in the main guns?
Basically a shot gun shell of a primer
Hannibal C. ford, been trying to figure out if there the same ones who made the armys M1 gun data computer
Really good video
I like it and I haven't even watched it yet.
I imagine having a battle station inside the armored citadel would be most desirable. Being inside a gun director would be one step up from an exposed 40 mm AA battery battle station.
Did the enemy try to target specific rooms/areas when they attacked or did they just try to generally hit the ship and hope that they hit something important?
@@ghost307 ignoring torpedoes, and air attacks - for gunnery only: going back to the age of sail, ships would choose their ammo type for specific targets: grape or cannister for crew, shot and double shot for hulls, and chain shot for masts and sails. Each ammo type could end fights: with no crew, the ship would stop fighting topside and expose the ship to capture, hull shots take out guns and allow the ocean in, and without masts and sails, the ship would be dead in the water.
For naval gunnery during WW2, the principles are the same: kill the crew, take out the guns, bust the sides open and let the ocean in, and stop the propulsion or steering system. For long range fighting (plunging fire) was "hope to hit something important," but as ranges decreased, specific vital areas would be targeted. the armored belt or waterline was most lethal, and was the preferred target. In the Battle of Samar, the guns of the American DDs and DEs could not penetrate the armored belt of Japanese BBs, so they intentionally raked the superstructures killing crewmen. A review of the battles of Surigao Strait, Bismarck vs Hood, and those around Guadalcanal prove the waterline hits to be most devastating. So the doctrine of the day dictated that if the enemy presented his broadside to your guns, then you target the armored belt and waterline. if your guns were inferior and unable to defeat the armored belt, then you aim for the superstructure (and hope you hit something important)
@@pizzafrenzyman Thanks for the detailed response. I would imagine that the crew's adrenaline levels increased rapidly as a function of how close the enemy got.
@@ghost307 The crew below decks would have no idea, but I'm sure they heard the guns, and felt hits throughout other parts of the ship. Most surface actions took place at night, which must have been quite a spectacle for those above deck. At Samar, a daylight engagement, the Japanese were using dye markers in their shells, which was another sight to behold with purple, blue, green, red, etc splashes. The sheer carnage of naval surface actions which turns men into a pile shredded flesh is a testament to the nickname given to all sailors: "Iron Men"
How about an open man powered director, controlling a 40 mm in WW-II or a 3" or Point Defense missile system in the 70's. Something I learned on BB NC was the 5" preferred to be controlled from a man powered instead of the Mark 37 not as rough a ride.
I would love to see how it would be done today with modern technology. I think a Raspberry Pi would be involved somehow
Apple and Google would have apps for the sailors' phones, which would link to the ship via Bluetooth. 😉
Switchboards are world's unto themselves. Some of those switches have multiple wafers that switch A LOT of circuits with one click. All sorts of backups and alternate power and control circuits are possible. Somebody has to memorize what switch does what for use at a moment's notice. And many of the switches are important for life and death situations. Big deal!
Multi-ganged, multi-pole switches
Did the director for the secondary batteries also control the 40mm and 20mm antiaircraft batteries?
20mm, no- there is no input available. Later 20mm had their own gyroscopic sights. 40mm were usually controlled via the Mk.51 directors nearby (the little splinter shield tubs near the guns). That means they don't get the benefit of the computers compensating for wind, ship speed, Coriolis effect etc but at anti-aircraft ranges it's good enough.
The NavWeaps website implies the 40mm could be connected to the Mk1A somehow but I haven't seen that anywhere else. If someone has info on that I'm all ears.
@@PhantomP63 I have seen videos of the 40mm in use with the gyroscopic site but no explanation of the site. Would like to see that from a technical side.
@@PhantomP63 Did you know that there at least 4 videos on UA-cam about the cams and gears in the fire control computers. Interesting.
the number 1 biggest improvement for US radar systems in WWII was when the UK gave the US the UK's radar technology, it is said the most valuable cargo to ever be shipped to US shores was the UK's cavity magnetron.
So True. And the biggest improvement in RN AA was when they adopted the Mk37, starting with HMS Delhi in 1941.
@@grathian but the Delhi still used the much superior British radar systems. which was fitted after the March to November refit in Brooklyn NY.
the fire control systems where also replaced on 15 Feb 1942, it had been on sea trails all of 1941.
@@johng.1703 The radar doesn't mean anything without a fire control system capable of hitting the target.
@@grathian and with British radar tech the US was able to produce the 5” proximity fuse for AA.
@@johng.1703 The British had given up on attempting a proximity fuse for gunnery when they showed there work to the Americans. The Americans promptly solved the problems of miniaturization and shock tolerance that stumped the Brits and mass produced the proximity fuse.
Ryan got a haircut! 💇♂️
Gun launched Scramjet projectiles? Excalibur guided shells?
GET THAT MAN SOME NEW SHOES!!!