We Loaded A 16" Projectile Into Turret 1! 

It's to bad mentality of government and business is short term now days.

It really is quite remarkable. Most machines need to be used regularly or they just rust and die and rot. The worst thing you can do to a machine is not use it.

@@russellparker5272 Not a battle ship, but still amazing IMO. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-AkeR9IWkJKE.html

Yes, they designed & built things to a much higher standard back then. A lot of it has to do with the "tools" at hand, no such thing as a PC or "palm pilot" or iPad, those engineers used a little thing a bit archaic by our standards called a "Slide Rule". I've used one (yes, I'm that old) in my HS days ( Central Catholic Pittsburgh, PA.) but we're talkin' damn near 50 year's ago. Don't ask me to now.😊😊 now.8

So​@@russellparker5272

And clean out the bores for a test shot.

next step is to stop recording for other countries to see

@@blakek1043 you do understand that those gun turrets were built in the 40's right?

@@greencanner4284 that's why they probably will still work 😂

@@blakek1043there is nothing classified about anything you see on these ships and none of them will probably ever return to service so it really isn’t benefiting any other country

Teamwork, makes the dream work. They probably had enough men to relive each other.🤷‍♂But yea, real men, er, boys. I'm glad I'm not serving today.

@@jakerazmataz852 absolutely. It's a given that it was a "all hands" activity. I'm talking about the sailors having the whole process and what their job was, Hell probably knew their job and the jobs of the men on either side of them too! Over the time of enlistment or even a deployment doing that stuff so many times and for periods of time. Their movements were all muscle memory. Without even thinking about what they were doing the task was breed into them so that when the proverbial stuff hit the fan those tasks became second nature.

Thank you. Much appreciated!

She mentioned 170 of them - that's nearly 150Tonnes!...

170 shells for ballast compared to a full load capacity of ~1300 mixed AE/HC and heavier AP shells.

Major kudos to the decommissioning crew. It works because of the job they did.

So do we. ❤️🙏

Right? It's a pretty incredible process. The thought behind all of it is a little mind-boggling.

Well said. SO much work goes into these ships!

Well, battleships are protected by the 2nd Amendment....

Hard to do since only the Texas is exempt from the part of the Navy contract that forbids them from using the steam systems.

It was said as a joke, but you had to come in and state the obvious.🙄@@Ghauster

@@lawrencet83 I believe they are going to end up leaving the ship in a shape of just gone into mothballs.

You still don't get it....whatever.@@Ghauster

Yeah, but you wouldn't have 3 men doing the lot, you've have a huge chain gang of guys moving all the shells about eveytime they restocked.

I believe the ship has several loading points in the deck for the turrets so a fully functional and crewed Iowa-class BB wouldn't normally load all the shells by turret three then use the rail to bring them to #1 and #2. The Iowa just deemed that spot the best for loading the ship in its present state.

@@roadsweeper1 i can imagine they moved a lot faster too.

​@@roadsweeper1You are correct Sir. It was usually an "all hands" affair unless done while underway then it was G-Div. and the Deck divisions.

​@@garywayne6083You are correct Sir. Each 16" Turret has two(2) strike down hatches alongside the Turret Barbette.

I was going to mention the 2012 Battleship movie with the Missouri as the chief actor (imo). The scene with - was it six guys? - moving a shell resting on one shoulder of each man, what a hoot. 1900 lb. shell weight distribution 317 lbs. per shoulder. A 2700 lb. AP? A whopping 450 lbs. for each guy. And, why not used the overhead railing in Broadway? Moviemakers.

@@brianchapman3701 4 guys, 475 pounds carried by each man, 1900 pound HC shell. No wonder they were grunting. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qtya4AkGvO8.html

Truth!

Thanks, Bob. We miss you, too!

They just need it too go under the bridge probably gonna dump it before going in the drydock

@@dennisverhaaf2872 Not sure I recall exactly, but it seems like Ryan said they'd have to take the top off the mast.

@@brianchapman3701 yes they need that and take on some ballast as well

The initial requirement for ballast up forward was to trim the ship to a more level attitude. Right now it's stern down (34-something draft aft and 26-something draft forward), which apparently is pretty much the natural state for a museum-configured (as in no ammo, no fuel, no stores, no crew) Iowa-class ship. To get close to where she needs to be, about 500,000 gallons (approx 2075 tons) of river water will be taken into the peak tanks. For drydock, a more level attitude is desirable for two reasons. Since New Jersey is going into drydock stern first, for comfortable clearance into the mouth of the drydock, the stern needs to go up a bit which of course means the bow would need to go down. Plus, the dry dock operators wanted the ship to come in more level so that when she lands on the blocks, she lands more evenly, minimizing concentrated loads on both the ship and the drydock. More recently, it was discovered that the original Navy 306-block drydock plan could not be used for the simple reason that there aren't that many blocks available to the dry dock operators. This is necessitating a rework of the drydock blocking plan, and depending upon how that works out, may or may not affect whether New Jersey will need to take on ballast for the purposes of drydock. Just as a point of information, the New Jersey museum property does have around 60-70+ or so de-milled projectiles, mostly serving as barriers in the parking lot. However, the weight of all of those added up would not have made much of a dent in the weight needed under the original ballasting plan, so it did not make much sense to pursue using them as ballast.

We had a fun time on your birthday!

I'm going to say it's the distance your moving them. Chain-falls have a shorter reach. Also the winch is setup on a temporary davit point and generally weigh less then a chain-fall.

​@@Ghauster You are correct. It is easier to store a cable than a like length of chain. The cable hoists must be able to be partially disassembled in order to train the turret. The chain hoists are fixed, and have less travel.

@@richardkoehnen7348 yes. You can see the stowed jib on top of the turret from the camera they had on second deck view of the turret rotating.

Couldn't resist...

At the time of recommissioning I was a journalist who reported from Pascagoula for the Cedar Rapids Gazette. Darned if I don't remember your name. Could be we met. Much appreciated your post above. (Visited Iowa three times, first when she was in reserve, June 1980. What an incredible ship.)

@@brianchapman3701 Iowa gave tremendous support to us as we recommissioned the ship, and we surely enjoyed it.

Shoot us a PM. We've got bunks!

@@BattleshipUSSIowaLosAngeles I sent you an email and look forward to your reply.

@@CRAZYHORSE19682003 Haven't found an email from you yet. If you wouldn't mind, shoot another one to podcast@labattleship.com

Would shells have had to be moved like that during combat? How easy would it be to stand a fallen shell back up on it's tail?

@@Akm72 Yes, there is a straight passageway called Broadway, it runs from turret 3 to turret 1. If turret three got knocked out in combat and ammunition was short they would be moving shells via the monorail. Getting a shell upright is another story. There are pad eyes everywhere in spaces where shells are stored. If it is close enough to a pad eye you would click a portable wench onto a pad eye and right the shell. I do not believe a group of people could right one by hand.

We couldn’t resist. 😁😉

@@BattleshipUSSIowaLosAngeles My thoughts also. Great video and respect to your efforts in maintaining this beautiful battleship.

Absolutely! Whenever we can. They know all the tricks. They help keep us safe. We've had two retired chiefs advising us throughout this process. There is no way to adequately quantify how valuable they have been. (And they're a lot of fun, too.)

Yeah, no.

Further out than 1 mile, Jake. Those guns, when fired, would break window glass upwards of 5 miles away. The concussion from guns that size is beyond regular peep's imagination. Study the firing of the large guns (14"-16") in San Pedro during WWII and you'll see what I mean. 🙂🙃🙂

We haven't oiled the deck so far. The projectiles move decently on the residual of what's there, and since we're new to the whole process, we want firmer footing, at least for now. Parbuckling is intimidating. We're taking our time and moving slowly to be as safe as possible.

😂 Sorry (not sorry).

Meh. Why be limited by a number? 😉

Possible but highly improbable because it would be extremely cost prohibitive.

So far it's working with just the residual that's on the deck. No gouge. Just left a trail. All good.

Not really. There's a bit of residual in there, but not too much.

It was until we painted it. 😉

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-U1GVGeNUphw.htmlsi=BFcymN-sr39px-Q0

@@BattleshipUSSIowaLosAngeles thank you! I’m new to this channel but totally obsessed with the Iowa

@@rickybobby7285 Cool! We won't do anything to discourage that obsession. 😂

Maybe the Iowa Class belongs in the South China Sea. Well, maybe not, but. . . .

I think certain people in the world could use a little reminder of what the biggest "f**k around and find out" weapon the U.S. has ever fielded did and can still do. Js

It's you. There are no plans to ever reactivate them. In the case of the New Jersey they reassigned the name New Jersey to another ship. That's how sure they'll never use it again. I understand it would be cheaper to rebuild new BBs. That's how much work would have to be done to these old battle wagons. For things like the 16" guns the Navy may heist them from the old ships. The Navy could do that. The Navy still has the right to take anything they want off of them I understand.

@@robertthomas5906 There's a new USS Iowa also. She's a Virginia class submarine. Don't know if she's entered service yet, but she is in the water.

Oh for sure. This was the first time we tried it. We were going slowly and deliberately on purpose.

🤣

😆👍

The hoists you see in the video are all original design to the Iowas. Not saying they haven't had maintenance rebuilds or replacements, but am saying that the ship was originally equipped with hoists in the places shown by the video.