About 60 years ago my brother and i climbed into one of the turrets and i laid on the loading tray and he pushed me into the gun by my feet. I still remember looking at the rifling inches from my face.
Couldn’t imagine how difficult it must have been in a battle situation. The incredible noise, heat, smells, confined spaces.. Great film, thanks for posting!
even under the best circumstances I can't imagine not coming away with debilitating hearing loss for life, being stuck inside a can shooting any size gun is crazy.
Tom Scott, the Older One, Battleship New Jersey and Drachinifel (regardless of the order) - 3 best WWII navy and battleship channels on YT. You should definetely meet on screen sometimes.
Thanks, but I think it would be the equivalent of me taking a knife to a gun fight when it comes to knowledge. What I know is mainly confined to Battleship Texas except where I need more to better understand a system or context. So, I'd be pretty quiet if we got together.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Honestly I think it would be an interesting mix. With Drachinifel you have someone with a range of knowledge, with Ryan from New Jersey you have a combo of a decent amount of broad knowledge but moreso specialized knowledge on New Jersey, then with you there is a ton of highly specialized knowledge on a specific ship. Personally I think that could make for some interesting conversations since each of you has different strengths to your respective knowledge. I think a conversation between you and Ryan from New Jersey, comparing the two ships and how things changed or stayed similar over the years between Texas and New Jersey, would be pretty interesting to hear. Afterall, in terms of surviving ships, Texas and New Jersey represent the beginning and the end of the dreadnought style (perhaps I should simply say 'all big gun') of battleship.
@Richard D Redner They would just need to set some limits, to make sure that Drach doesn't just ramble on for 6 hours (ffs, how many times have I listened to him go on about something for that long....). I would propose a ratio of 5:3:1 for Mr. Scott here : Ryan : Drach. For every min that Drach gets to speak, Ryan gets 3 and Tom gets 5. (As anyone who reads this might know, that is a very specific ratio, from a very specific treaty.... and yes, it means that Drach is France, since we know how much he loves their pre-ww1 designs.... Ryan would be Japan, fitting for the curator of that particular ship and of course Tom Scott would be America because Texas. :D) edit: and of course, I will be the master of typos >.< edit 2: addendum: 3 different foci (for anyone asking, yes this is the plural of focus, for the pedants among us, 'focuses' means 'to focus'), 1 common theme. This to me says good times. Nobody gives a F about an echo chamber where everyone says the same thing. And when people are all off on their own separate thing, it is just dumb. 3 distinct people/wealths of knowledge coming at the same subject.... that is the kind of setup that can generate some great dicussions. (btw, I just try to use more words more often, yep I am a pedant and I do love my nitpicking, though mainly for fun and my own education, but moreso I just like words, I can be a PITA that way :D also remember, typing something out or writing it out, makes it so you are more likely to remember it in the future than simply making a mental note of something will, so feel free to ignore this tangent.)
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Don’t feel your perceived lack of knowledge is a bad thing - you just have DIFFERENT knowledge - AND don’t forget, you have something Drach doesn’t have - an actual battleship! That’s an awesome fact right there!
I have so much respect for you and what you do. Thank you for all the information you have given I'm thoroughly looking forward to checking the Texas off the list of ships I want to see.
Thanks for another excellent video! I love how informative these are, and look forward to every new upload. Keep up the great work, and thank you again for making these.
It started manufacturing in 1912 and was completed in 1914 befor America joined the first world war but never really got much combat don't blame them wouldn't want to fight the biggest and baddest ship at that time but in ww2 is when it got some great action on d day
Fun fact, following the Normandy landing the ship was known for a somewhat odd way of supporting troops at the edge of its main guns range. The reason why is because the captain ordered if I remember correctly the starboard torpedo blister to be flooded so it could gain the extra elevation it needed to offer fire support
The USS Texas Absolutely flooded it's starboard side, causing the Ship to roll.. This gave the ship a gain of more than a few degrees, allowing the ship to shoot beyond it's guns capable range.. Look up "The Fat Electrician" on RU-vid and type USS Texas.. It's the story and no one tells it better..
I will never understand what Ike and Ernest King were thinking when they said, "Okay, the only battleship heavy artillery for Omaha Beach on D-Day will be from two ancient dreadnoughts, the Texas and Arkansas...even though we have around 10 other more modern battleships in service. Also, let's place Nevada (a much more modern battleship that served at Normandy) at Utah Beach, which was a cakewalk landing, instead!!!"
Good video on the loading procedure of the 14 inch gun. Having visited the Battleship Texas a couple of years ago I really appreciate your efforts in making these videos.
I don’t mean to offend The Battleship Texas Foundation, they are doing fantastic work with the ship but they need to take Tom on as their chief videographer, their videos are good and I look forward to them but Tom’s are to a much higher standard and brilliantly presented. I really enjoyed seeing you in front of the camera this time and hope you will do more videos this way. Yourself and Ryan at Battleship New Jersey have an excellent delivery style, straight to the point with no rambling. I’m sure I can speak for many viewers when I say I really appreciate the effort you put in to make these videos
Thank you for your kind comments; however, I feel Travis has superb content and a very good conversational presentation style. One thing to consider is that I can take all of the time I want to produce one. This video took almost a month to research, shoot and assemble. In their case, the staff is extremely busy getting the ship ready for tow to a shipyard and repairs, so their videos are done on the fly and practically stream of consciousness. I think it is pretty effective, plus they are very content rich as can be seen in their Combat Information Center video. In fact, I was working on one of that space when they posted theirs. I scrapped mine after seeing what they had done because theirs was far more detailed and better than what I had planned. Though I will say this, while Travis is younger and smarter than me, I am better looking! :)
Tom, thanks for another outstanding video! You answered many questions I had and yours is the first real explanation I’ve gotten on how the dump tray worked. It was nice to see the view inside the “side pocket” as well.
I wasn't aware of its actual operation until I read references to it in old gunnery manuals. Then it was a matter of horsing one around until I saw exactly how it worked.
For the full Dickensian experience I imagine children operating these turrets LOL A more oppressive operating environment is hard to imagine. I read the Wikipedia entry on Texas' service history and I must say the gun crews were very well drilled as her rate of fire for the main turrets was amazing for so much manual handling. Among other engagements, she proved herself particularly useful at D-Day. Using the main guns to kill those snipers up that gorge was particularly interesting. Her service history for an older ship is exemplary.
Thanks, I accidentally ran across that not long ago and fell in love with it. Fortunately, it is in the public domain. It and a photo of the ship belching coal smoke are two of my favorite photos of the ship at sea. The coal smoke photo can be seen at the beginning of the "Starboard Engine Room Lower Grate" video.
I know that the Texas is big old lady, but oh my, she needs a good deep cleaning every one in a while to keep her shipshape for future generations. Tangent aside she's what a beauty the she is!
Very interesting. A very manual turret , compared to the Iowa class. I'm curious as to what two men in the gun well are doing when the gun elevates into the firing position? It doesn't look like there's much space in the well. Good to see so much work being done on the USS Texas. I've been following her for about 13 years. Good to see the progress.
The two wellmen lie down across the silver tray that the powder slides on when it enters the gun well. This puts them just below the forward edge of the loader's platform that lowers when the gun elevates and out of the way of the recoiling breech.
"I'm an old fat guy..." Ha! Got you beat on both counts! But not on battleship knowledge. This video is awesome. E expect I'll be watching all of your others in the next day or three!
I was a GMG2 and a MT CPT on a 5'54 and all I can say is Out Friggen Standing! We had two men in the mount and basically sat back and watched stuff happen and made sure Murphy didn't show his face. I would not want any of those powdermens jobs that's for sure. Thank you!
Fantastic trio of videos on 14 inch turret operations. I’m researching the USS Arizona and the role the band played in manning turret 2. The functions performed here, especially the powder movement and the choreography required in the handling process seems very appropriate for band members. Probably not all the heavy lifting, but sliding and sorting.
Love your videos! I’ve been visiting BB-35 all my life. It never gets old. Every visit would find me sitting and wondering how a particular system really worked. I’ve always tried to picture the crew at work. Your videos are wonderful as they describe, in detail, the functionality of those systems. Thank you for all you do!
How about touring one of the Iowa class ships like mighty moe or the short teperd uss Wisconsin or the ship that somehow sank a heavily fortified island uss new Jersey Another.... wait forgot she was scraped uss barb the only submarine in history to sink a train
The two ‘unseen’ crew members down a deck must have hated the shit out of that battle station! I was claustrophobic and it kept me off of subs 😢 and that space would be as bad in my opinion.
No ventilation, no communications, throwing four 105lbs powder bags from one scuttle to another, hearing the gun fire... Yeah I think I'd work real hard to get a different position in the turret! Come to think of it, while the turret is one of the most protected spaces in the ship, it would not be fun being in there in a battle. You have no idea if you're winning or if the back half of the ship was on fire!
@@fire304 you would truly hope that your sound powered phones had another connection to…perhaps the 1MC 😉 I would be pulling the jack and switching to any damage control or main shipboard communication circuit…when I had a chance…if ever. Doh!
@@TAllyn-qr3io Texas would not have had sound powered originally, and only a few key crewmen would have had them once installed. Only the turret commander and maybe one or two rangefinder men would have any eyes outside.
@@fire304 so, w/o phones they only had each other for “shootin’ the shit”? Man, that is like being in a foxhole or at some checkpoint when I was in the Army (prior Navy and retired Army)…and when in situations like that, most everyone was boring or other ticks that ‘really’ bother you after a bit. I was either on the ‘stack’ in sonar control, roving guard, quarterdeck or 50cal. when sonar was not powered up. 50cal. was with the stingers and they were all non-designated strikers…odd bunch they all were. 😬
@@TAllyn-qr3io jarhead here, yes only it's like being in the sonar shack with the door closed and locked, no sonar or anything else to do until either you hear the fire mission alarm (I think they had a bell in the gun pit) or the gunners above open the hatch to say they were securing from GQ. And I'm certain they were low men on the town, bet a seaman aprentice and maybe an GM3, or SFC. Ugh...
It’s amazing when you look at the process to load a cannon abroad HMS Victory and the process of loading a 14 inch or 16 inch guns. Their two things that they have in common the first is they both used bags of powder and the second thing is that they used either a damp sponge or compressed air to clear the gun to make it ready for firing once again
Tom, great video as always! Actually I believe the greatest difference between Texas and New Jersey is the Iowa’s Ready Circuit 1R which prevents simple out of sequence loading mistakes. Things like you cannot open the door for the powder car until you have rammed the projectile. But if you eliminate Circuit 1R the process is very similar. Also a fun fact: the primers for the 14”, 16” and 5” bag guns are all the same. The Mk 15 primer. Which makes sense if you think about it. Docent at the National Museum of the Pacific War is great, but I sure miss the Texas.
Bob, as always, thanks for the input! I was aware of the common use of the Mk. 15 primer. What a great and reliable design! Well, except for the misfire you told me about a while back! I am currently working on a video that along with barrel, projectile and powder design, will include a detailed description of the primer and its operation. All U.S. bag guns also used the Mk XIV, Mod 1 firing lock. That is an amazingly complex mechanism that I would love to get my hands on. Unfortunately, I don't know of any that I can look at and touch. I'm really glad that you landed at the National Museum of the Pacific. The last time I was there was about 30 years ago, so there's a pretty good chance I may see something new on my next visit! :) I'll give you a call if I get a chance to visit.
Agree, that is a major motivator for me. It’s practically impossible to really appreciate the degree of technical advancement that occurred without seeing both ends of the evolution up close and personal.
No kidding! I've been in one of Alabama's turrets and I'm pretty jealous. If you look very carefully my video, you can see the black tube that is a rangefinder running crosswise across the top of the barrel in turret 2. Reaching the operator's seat required crawling and squeezing on top of the gun mount in the right sleeve. You can simply walk up to the one on Alabama! Plus, they have a range finder in theirs used to calculate firing solutions. It isn't fair! :)
I can tell you from direct experience that the turrets are unsurvivable on sunny days when temperatures exceed 85-90 degrees. However. each turret is well ventilated by two very large blowers that pull air from inside the ship and out through openings in the outer bottom edges of the turret houses.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Very interesting, they pull air from lower in the ship where the water makes it cooler, a simple, practical solution. Still, I imagine the experience is only slightly better than working in a turn-of-the-century steel mill. The metal itself looks like it's been sweating.
If each of those bags weighed a hundredweight those well men must have been knackered after a few rounds were fired! Brilliant video, thank you very much
Thanks for the compliment! Based upon your comment, I assume you are from the UK. In 1918, a Royal Navy commander performed a detailed inspection of a similar US turret. He was very critical of the lack of powered systems and reliance upon manual handling in his report. However, he commented that the high level of physical conditioning and training of the gun crews made up for the primitive nature of the design. This is supported by an early gunnery drill manual that said powder handlers should drill daily by passing at least 100 bags until they could do it without breathing hard! I doubt there were many volunteers for that job.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 I am indeed. I’m surprised that a RN commander would have the brass neck to criticise US turret systems and handling after the disaster of British ships at Jutland! I suspect his criticism is more due to the fact the RN spent a lot of time and effort training officers and gave little thought to training the men under their command - probably hankering back to the days of the press gangs a century or so earlier. Obviously the US navy invested more time training ratings to do their job efficiently - which is why it all worked. Thanks for the video again, I’m now subscribed.
@@annoyingbstard9407 in defense of the commander, he was a little more careful than the way I stated it. Besides, I have the impression that once you get beneath the admiralty level politics and blame game, there was some pretty honest and open self inspection that led to significant improvements. The US Navy was also very interested in outside expert opinions that led to some important changes on Texas. This included eliminating a number of watertight doors deep within the ship to improved subdividing and protection against flooding.
I look at that decking and it saddens me (as well as all the chipped paint on the mechanics). So much rotting wood. ILL ADD: Great video, great explanation on how a gun house works in a ship that's over 100 years old.. excellent!! Get some more Gatorade and keep teaching, your knowledge is irreplaceable!!!
That's the nature of wood decking unfortunately. The New Jersey replaced hers over the last year and a half. It's something like $3/sqft for the wood planks, the deck of a battleship is a lot of Sq feet......
They said on the news recently during her move to dry-dock that not only would her hull be getting repaired but she would be getting all new decking as well.... can't wait to see her a year or so from now!
Oh, you are PHENOMENAL ! What a wonderful video. Since you are too young to have seen this in action, did you read the manuals (you reference them) and perhaps have some discussions "back in the day" with actual crew members ? I'm guessing, just as with the Iowa class, the Navy was proud of their capabilities, and would be really neat if you could point to a film of this in action. Meanwhile, with the power of your description, I can close my eyes (oh, and you talked about your sweat-sacrifice to provide this video - did they have ventilation for the crew - I imagine of they had pressure air to clear the barrel, the energy and air handlers *could have* been available for the crew) and imagine, "Boy, that would suck - glad I was in the Air Force."
Thanks for the very kind compliment! Yes, I used several editions of period Navy gunnery manuals as references. Most are available for free download on Google Books and serve as the primary source for most of my information. I am not aware of any historic film shot inside the turret. Besides, I think it would have been next to impossible to fit a cameraman and the sizeable lighting of the era inside considering the size of the space and the number of crew located there. We were able to talk to former crew during reunions years ago and what they told us at the time is generally in line with what I show. While they are an invaluable resource, crew interviews have to be carefully considered. 70 year old memories can contain errors, such as us being told that well men laid on their backs underneath the loader's platform when the barrel was elevated. Scaled drawings indicate they would have been crushed if they did that. The manuals state that they were to lie on top of the silver bag tray ahead of the platform to get out of the way. As far as ventilation, there were two huge blowers located just below the turret, and their outlets are in the left and right gun pits immediately ahead of the well men's positions. These pumped huge amounts of air throughout the turret so it was likely to be pretty comfortable inside. Unfortunately, they were not available for me to use.
This explains Iowa's turret explosion. Thanks. You explain things in a way that we non-sailors can understand. Your channel has joined New Jersey's as my favourites!
exactly- I never considered how a bad breech seal, hot embers in the barrel or a million other things could set off an explosion but it makes perfect sense mow
Yeah, it's funny, but I didn't even notice them until I was reviewing the videos I shot. The downside is they hide some interesting features. On the upside, they will do a lot to keep weather out of the turrets, which is much more important!
4:00 Love how small the screw for rising/lowering the angle of the gun is. Makes sense with how finely balanced I'd imagine the gun is. Just seems like it'd be larger, but reckon not. I'm surprised the turret is sub divided. Didn't realize it wasn't like more modern turrets that have all 2-3-4 guns in same room. The well man and guys in the pocket had it the worst it seems haha.
The screw looks pretty big to me. Perhaps it looks smaller due to perspective. Btw, you are right, it is finely balanced. The center of balance for the barrel, breech and slide assemblies all together is right at the trunnions that the barrel rotates on to elevate. The major weight that has to be lifted is the 1,920 lbs. of a projectile and powder charge, plus the inertia loads provided by the 60+ tons of mass. What is really impressive is that power to elevate the barrel came from a 15 hp motor! Go to 10:20 in this video to get a complete closeup of it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sTizEKz0u5s.html
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Indeed! Thanks for link to closeups, didn't see those. That was most interesting system of the gun in my eyes. Yeah, I naturally assumed it would be even larger when I saw it. Looks only like 4" or so. I just envisioned like a solid 12" piece in my mind. Makes sense though that it's not. Crazy that a 15 hp motor has the power to move that. Heck, both the guns it sounds like. Looks like it has clever reduction gearing. That clutch system is cool too.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Ah, yeah definitely perspective from video throwing me off then. Only looks like 4" to me. Forget my whole comment then! hahah ;)
Superb video, narration, and graphics once again, Tom! Some questions: When the gun fires, does it recoil over the loader's platform? There doesn't seem to be much clearance between the breech buffer and loader's platform floor. When the gun is ready to fire, where do the two wellmen go to get clear of the recoil? Adjacent to the hoistman position at 5:56, there is a hose, and what looks like a valve and a nozzle hanging on bulkhead. What is the purpose of that feature? Thanks in advance!
Yes, it always recoils over the loader's platform since the platform stays in precisely the same orientation with the breech regardless of gun elevation. I am not sure what you mean by breech buffer. Regardless, a fraction of an inch is good enough as long as it clears. The two wellmen lay down across the silver tray that the powder slides on out of the side pocket. That puts them ahead and below the loader's platform, which is the lowest portion of the gun assembly. The hose appears to be hooked up to a water supply. My best guess is that it may be used if there was a misfire that couldn't be cleared by repeated attempts to fire with fresh primers, resulting in having to open the breech plug and remove powder. This is a particularly deadly thing to do. The turret would be cleared of all personnel, except for a couple of trained crew and a gunnery officer. The firing lock mechanism would be rotated and removed from the plug, leaving an opening about the size of the nozzle on that hose wand. If I am right, they would insert the tip of the wand into the primer vent and shoot water into the chamber in an effort to thoroughly soak the powder bags before opening the plug.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 I misspoke. I meant to write "recoil buffer nut" or "gun yoke." Your educated guess concerning the water nozzle makes complete sense.
You are certainly right; the shell and propellant handling systems of Texas are very primitive compared to the Iowas. It boggles the mind to imagine that Texas participated in the bombardment of Normandy before and after the invasion in 1942. Kudos to the officers and men aboard her.
In spite of the fact that the systems were largely manual, a well trained and drilled crew could keep up a high rate of fire for an extended period. The fire control system was pretty obsolete when compared to later ships and this would have been a problem in a sea superiority role, but they worked very well for landing support and shore bombardment. Air spots continually reported back complete destruction of targets using indirect fire thousands of yards inland during the D-Day landings. Its effectiveness was further demonstrated on the afternoon of June 6 at Omaha Beach when the ship closed to within 3,000 yards of the beach and used the 14" guns to clear exit D-1 with deadly pinpoint accuracy. This saved the lives of scores of troops and provided a major way off the beach.
There for a minute I was like wait, they still fire the main guns on the Texas? (Well if anyone would be crazy enough to fire guns that big outside combat it would be in TX) but alas I am some what disappointed...no big boom boom...I'd definitely come down there to see that though...I think Ryan said it cost about $50 per round to shoot off the 40MMs on New Jersey, so that be a $100/ticket show to see the main guns fire I imagine 😅
Ouch, that sounds an incredibly physical process, with several hundred pounds of powder being lifted up by a bunch of young men in cramped quarters. The Iowas almost have it easy in comparison with the powder bag delivery directly onto the rammer tray location.
That's true, but they were pretty clever about it. Enough crew were employed to break the work for every individual down to fairly short lifts and movements. 1918 and 1920's gunnery manuals stated that powder passers were to be exercised using practice bags on a daily basis by moving at least 50 bags in a session. The goal was for each man to not be breathing hard by the end of a session. With successful conditioning, those guys could probably go for hours before tiring out. Even more amazing was that at one time, there were no powered powder hoists. Getting bags to the dividing room, just before the turret, involved passers standing on platforms spaced 30" apart. They would pick up a bag placed on their platform by the guy beneath them, then lift it and set it on the one just above them. Talk about strenuous work!!! Powered hoists were added in the 1919-20 time frame to replace those platforms. This not only sped up powder movement, but most importantly, eliminated a major hazard by closing up a wide open path for flames between the dividing room and lower handling room if there was a powder fire.
Also I love your explanation of how USS Texas guns work honestly I'm a guy with Asperger's syndrome and I don't learn very well but honestly I could just sit there all day and listen to you just go on about USS Texas and actually learn you make it fun and educational
Now I know why sailors of that generation had arms like Popeye. The guys in the Gun well having to lift roughly 50kg above their heads a minimum of twice individually every time the gun fired. I can’t begin to imagine doing that for a protracted gun battle, with the expectation that my speed of delivery had to be exactly the same on the last shell as it was on all the ones previously. Hats off to them
Right! One thing that helped was early gunnery manuals said that all crew members that passed powder should be exercised daily until they could pass a large number of bags without breathing hard.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 now that is an interesting fact I didn't consider. I assumed that it was either a case of only assigning certain guys who you knew would be good to go straight out the bat, or random selection. In the case of random selection I assumed that if you weren't strong and fast enough you would just be yelled at until you became capable. I wonder then if there was a certain 'elitism' amongst the powder monkeys with regards to being trained to be strong. Would the captain go to them to put together the ships boxing team etc? Further onto that I assume that some were mightily pissed off when electronic devises were introduced to replace them or make their lives easier? I certainly know some old engineers who still use hand crank tools because 'power tools are for wimps, and didn't have to put effort in like the old days'.
@@actionidiot7546 At least one book written by a former crew member notes that many departments on the ship had plenty of volunteers because the skills they picked up translated to jobs in civilian life. This wasn’t the case with gunnery. Most crew were assigned there whether they wanted it or not. So, there may be some random element in play at that level. However, assignments within a gun crew would very heavily consider individual attributes. It would be a serious mistake to put a man in a job who was physically incapable of performing it, then punish him when he fails. You not only ruin him, you lose the respect of the entire crew. Gunnery manuals clearly stated that well men and loaders should have a lot of strength. Gun captains should have high intelligence and the ability to manage a small team. It was common for gun crews to compete against one another as a means of building skill, teamwork and morale.
We have all seen movies & video of battleships firing their main batteries, & occasionally seeing after the round has left the barrel along with a cloud of smoke, that a sheet of flame would then momentarily emerge from the muzzle. Is this flame resulting from the gun crew blasting compressed air down the bore, just prior to opening the breach?
You'll typically see a puff of smoke a few seconds after the gun fires that is the result of compressed air igniting and pushing the remains of unburned gasses out of the barrel by the gas ejector.
It was called either a range clock or concentration dial that indicated distance in hundreds and thousands of yards to a target, and was read by other friendly ships to know the distance between the ship doing the aiming and its target. That information was used in combination with angle, also called deflection, that was shown using marks painted on the sides of the ship's turrets that were called declination marks. Other friendly ship could read that using binoculars or telescopes to quickly mark the aiming ship's location on a map, draw a line using the angle indicated on the turret, then make its length indicated by the range clock. With that, they could identify a single ship out of a group of enemy ships and make it their target. Ganging up on a single target was a common tactic called "group firing". This also what provides the name "concentration dial" since it was used to concentrate fire on a single ship. The range and declination information was not precise enough for your fellow friendly ships to use for aiming their guns, but it was good enough to tell them which ship you were aiming at. Once they identified the ship, they would perform their own target ranging and calculations, generate their own firing solutions and fire at the same enemy ship. Considering that a single ship may hit their target 10% of the time on a good day, group firing significantly increased the odds of disabling and sinking an enemy ship. Range clocks and declination marks started going away by the early 1930's as radio between ships and spotter aircraft came into common use.
What's always blown my mind is how the cloth bags used for the powder charges don't leave any bits behind after the shot. As a combat engineer i was trained in demo and with some of the ordinance we use you'll often see fragments of things you'd think would sublimate into vapor or just burn up. Plastic coating from det cord, cardboard from tnt blocks, etc. Though i think that has more to do with detonation velocity, blast is over so fast there wasn't time. But i suppose with the gunpowder those guns use the heat and pressure behind that projectile could keep the temperature high enough for long enough to consume the cloth. It's cool to me
Since you were trained in demolition, you likely know much of this, especially the nature of burning explosives. So, I am covering this for other readers also. There is a good reason for residue and explosive gasses being present after firing. First, the gasses produced by firing reached several thousand degrees and immediately heated the surface of the gun bore to a very high temperature that remained long enough to be a heat source that could reignite gasses and debris that may still be present in the bore and powder chamber. Next, the oxygen used in the burning process is chemically bound up in the propellant itself. However, there is not enough present to completely consume the propellant. So, the process is that when a powder grain ignites, it releases propellant vapor and oxygen from its surface that burns extremely rapidly until the grain is consumed. However, not all of the gaseous mixture is burned because it runs out of oxygen. When the breech is opened, fresh air rushes into the breech or muzzle, providing enough oxygen to reignite the gas. As the flame expands it pushes out of the breech, exposing more of the remaining gas to oxygen and continues to burn until consumed. All of this happens in a millisecond or less. Regarding fragments, there may be two types present. First, there may be tiny fragments of unburned propellant present. The powder grains that were used were extruded cylinders that had 7 holes running their length to provide more burning surface area. The pieces left behind are fragments of what is called the web, which is the material between the holes. Even though the gasses are hot enough to ignite when oxygen is introduced, the surface temperature on the fragments has dropped enough to stop the evaporation process. So, they sit there waiting for a new ignition source, which is the reignited gasses. The bags were made from raw silk, which readily burns and leaves only a fine ash that will not ignite since it has already burned. However, it is possible that tiny fragments have been left behind. Plus, it is my understanding that the bag laces may have been made out of wool on early bags that could have left unburned pieces behind. Even though gasses and fragments have been burned using the gas ejector, there is still a remote possibility that some fragments remain. The greatest concern was that fragments may remain on the face of the breech plug that came in contact with the next shot's powder bag ignition patch containing black gun powder. That is why it was always wiped with a wet sponge between shots. If there is any concern about a foul bore, one manual said that the gun captain should immediately order a shell to be rammed into the gun to seal the bore ahead of the shell and eliminated it as a potential ignition source. They could then spray the powder chamber behind the shell with water to cool and wet down any remaining debris. They could then proceed with loading bags. Since gunnery procedures required loading immediately before firing, the powder in the bags wouldn't soak up enough of the water remaining in the chamber to have any effect upon on firing or performance.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 thanks for taking the time to share more of your knowledge. The bit of information i was lacking was that the powder bags were silk. It makes a lot more sense now. Still cool, just less of a head scratcher lol. Thank you again for your time sir.
Another great and informative video! I would suggest at some point to assemble a team large enough to place a person at each of the crew positions and train each person to concisely describe their individual duties and procedures, similar to how you described them in the video. Maybe even dress them in period correct uniforms. The presence of the right number of crewman within all those gun house positions would really help illustrate the processes.
Thanks for your input. I agree that would be ideal, but it requires a level of organizing and cooperation that is unavailable to me at this time. This is especially true since all staff and volunteer resources are focused on getting the ship ready for tow and dry docking. However, I understand that it is a future project being considered by Battleship Texas Foundation for their channel.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Great! I hope they can pull it off! I am retired Army, Field Artillery, and I've seen crew drills done in demonstrations put on for visitors and family days and other events. Obviously this would take significant training and rehearsal, but once everyone gets it down pat, it would make a great video to display for visitors.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 that's really cool, Tom. If and when they need some young, fit volunteers (much like yourself), I'm betting the Texas A&M NROTC would welcome the opportunity to participate and gain the historical knowledge.
Ola ..voce tem que vir aqui para o Brasil visitar e filmar por dentro o Monitor Parnaiba U17, o ultimo navio que lutou na 2 guerra e ainda na ativa..Abraço
its astonishing the progress made in such a short period of time. In a matter of about 30 years this dreadnought loading procedure that was used for decades before was superseded by the more advanced systems of the wartime cruiser and fast battleships 8"/55 and 16"/50 then to the automatic system for the 8"/55. It may be cynical but mankinds drive for innovation is the desire to kill each other in much more spectacular ways.
Texas and New York actually started out with a fully manual system. Bags were passed by hand up a series of platforms vertically spaced 30” apart from the lower handling room to the dividing room. This was not only inefficient, but offered no protection against fires flashing between the two levels. A powered hoist was installed sometime between 1919 and 1922 that replaced the platforms and improved protection. This was an easy installation since adequate space was already there and it solved 95% of the problem. Powering anything else would have required extensive modifications and time in a shipyard for little improvement in performance. Gun crews were constantly trained and exercised, and proved fully capable of maintaining a high rate of fire.
How loud was it in the gun house when it fired? I'm sure it wasn't as loud as it was outside the turret. Was there any hearing protection other than cupping their hands over their ears? Is there any documentation on resulting tinnitus or deafness?
I spoke with a veteran who served in a turret about 20 years ago. He said that it wasn't uncomfortably loud. It could certainly be heard, but it wasn't uncomfortable. After all, the blast noise was produced at the gun's muzzle that is on the other side of 14" thick armor. Most of the interior noise was a loud swooshing sound from the recoil buffer when it fired and a loud slam as the barrel was pushed back to battery position by big counter recoil springs. I would imagine there would have also been background noise from blower, training and pointing motors that ran nonstop when in action.
Looking at the differences between Texas and New Jersey inside their respective turrets is unreal. New Jersey feels modern enough that you dont think much of it other than the awkwardness of some of its spaces. Inside one of Texas's turrets like this one here.... Its like stepping back in time to WW1, literally Titanic era construction on full display. This feels like the inside of an oversized 1880s steam locomotive in terms of construction style. It visibly is old in a way New Jersey just doesn't show. I dont know how else to put it.
That's an entirely reasonable statement. One of the great values of Battleships Texas is to see her systems that represent the early end of an evolutionary scale, then visit an Iowa class ship to see the end.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Indeed, the more I watch New Jerseys channel and yours the more I feel I'll have to make a point of visiting both battleships if I'm ever in their respective areas. One thing I will note is how cool it is to see the gun systems in both ships. I was an artillery man while in the army and I find these massive naval guns fascinating.
Thank you for all the work you do related to the Texas Tom. The ship itself, of course, is an artifact that needs to be preserved for future generations, but knowledge like this can also be lost with time so seeing you put it here on the Internet to be preserved for the future is something that I deeply respect. Thank you!
@@John73John Yeah, pretty tight, but everyone had a specific place to stand and set of motions to perform to do their job. I doubt that they got in each other's way as long as the did what they were supposed to do and in the right order.
It would be an exceptional situation for that to happen. They were pretty well committed to firing a gun at the moment the command was given to load. The most likely reason that I can think of to unload one is if it failed to fire and none of the procedures used for a misfire worked. That was also exceptionally rare and would be a gunner's worst nightmare. If unloading a misfire, they work with the idea that the gun will fire at any moment. They first clear the turret of personnel, except for a gunnery officer and a couple of crew. They wait a minimum of 30 minutes with the gun pointed in a safe direction since there may be a smoldering fire on the powder bag that eventually sets it off. After that, they leave the breech closed, but open the firing lock and remove the primer. Water is then sprayed through the primer vent into the powder chamber. They have a special wand that allows that while standing to one side of the gun. Once that happens, they open the breech and spray more water into the chamber, then the 4 bags are pulled out. At that point the gun is safe. A crew member then crawls into the empty powder chamber, attaches a lifting eye to the shell's base and that has a rope tied to it. They tie the other end to the extended rammer, then reverse it to pull the shell out of the gun. If the exceptionally rare occasion happened that a ceasefire was called with a gun still loaded, they could unload it using the above method, but without hosing everything down with water. The only problem is it was assumed that the powder bags would no longer ignite properly after being out of their storage containers for a long time and possibly warmed in a hot gun. The bags wouldn't be dangerous, but simply would not perform in a predictable manner. For that reason, they would no longer be usable. The bags would be placed in storage containers called tanks and set aside for return to the powder manufacturer for recycling. However, that is a lot of work to go to, especially during war. While it was expensive, the preferred method would be to "clear the gun through the muzzle", meaning they got permission from the task force commander, warned surrounding ships and fired the gun in a safe direction to get rid of the unwanted charge.
I understand what you are saying but keep in mind that what looks like a small jump of 2" from a 14" to 16" gun results in huge increases in size and weight of barrels, slides and all other gun components. For that reason alone, the manual design used on Texas would have been totally impossible on any 16" battleship. There's no question that more physical effort went into operating these 14" guns, but it wasn't overly strenuous for properly trained and conditioned crews. The hardest job would have been that of the powder men located below the guns who rapidly lifted 105 pound powder bags from deck level to over shoulder level one after another. One thing that helped them was that gunnery manuals recommended exercising these guys until they could pass 50 bags without becoming exhausted. If they did become exhausted, they could swap positions with other members of the gun crew and rest up doing a less strenuous job. Perhaps the most significant disadvantage of Texas' systems wasn't crew fatigue, but the inability to reload faster than once every 45 seconds. Later designs, and certainly the British, heavily incorporated powered systems that produced reload speeds of 30 seconds. That is a big advantage in a gunfight!
@@tomscotttheolderone364 thank your for taking the time to give me such a detailed and informative reply....i appreciete that greatly. Good luck and best wishes to you sir.
All shells came from the depot with base mounted fuses installed and could be fired that way. Only nose mounted, called point detonating fuses, and timer fuses were added on the ship. They were installed in the shell while on the loading tray immediately before being rammed into the gun. PDF fuses served as a backup and helped assure that the shell wouldn't be a dud. Timer fuses were used to detonate the shell before impact for an air burst.
