Battleship Texas, Feeding The Big Guns 

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 understand making these videos are complex

You are very welcome, thank you for watching them!

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.

Thank you!!!

I am glad you enjoyed it!

Thank you!

Thank you, Bob, same to you and yours!

You are welcome, thank you for watching!

Thank you for your kind words, I am very glad that you enjoy my videos!

Thank you!

Thank you for watching!

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.

My pleasure!

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. 😊

Yes - look at the treaty-era battleships. There's a lot more power equipment taking the place of human muscle.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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", ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-cTW6RX5ECMc.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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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!

:)

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!

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.

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 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 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 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".

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.

worked pretty well obviously.

Thank you! My mother thought so, too!

Actually, you are wrong. I have volunteered on board for more than 20 years and have known all of the staff and most volunteers during that period of time. You have absolutely no knowledge of the ship's history as a museum, what it takes to maintain such a large and complicated artifact and the sacrifices and effort expended by hundreds of very dedicated people who love the ship or you wouldn't make such an insulting statement. As far as "all of the money", do you know how much that is and what it was spent on? I would like to know.