I was on the USS Kennedy at the time. We were in port in Haifa watching a thunderstorm to the north when we realized it wasn't a storm, it was New Jersey shelling.
My late father probably qualified these lots of powder in 1951-1955 when he was main battery officer at Dahlgren. After he retired he ended up at the Naval Safety Center in Norfolk VA where he was the Navy's ranking expert on the 16" Naval Rifles.
A relative of mine in the army in vietnam as a ground grunt used to praise the accuracy of naval (battleship) artillery in hitting everything accurately they designated. He said it was infinitely more accurate than ground artillery and they used that resource whenever they could.
The Battleships could be in the (relatively) close to targets on the calm waters near shore in Vietnam, the "fire control computers" can really use their long range sighting inputs to enhance accuracy. It takes a lot of practice and team work to reach that level of accuracy (and some other ... efforts on ships like Iowa "experiment" with propellants and loadings to get those "improvements" - it cost sailors lives).
@@Synergy7StudiosYes, but the old powder shouldn't have been used in the first place. It was an "improvement" by one of the sailors, using the old powder from WW2 to increase range and accuracy. The problem? It specifically had written on the powder bags to not use with the 2700lb shells. Solution? Use 5 bags instead of six. Add a hydraulic rammer that was known to move erratically, the sailor using it being inexperienced and there's the recipe for a disaster.
@@donkeyboy585 naw, "ORDINANCE, dammit! I meant GOOD ordinance, dammitalltohell!". ;) I remember collecting unexploded TNT from a demolition crater, returning it to the crater, the charges being dated 1957 and moderately corroded. Had a few gentle words of advice for the O-1 that signed for the explosives about inspection upon receipt and rejection of hazardous ordinance. Seriously, I was gentle. He was a good kid, didn't know better and needed that advice, which he took to heart, as he did take good care of those under him.
Ryan, I was under the impression that the reason for the variation in the fall of shot was powder degradation. The Navy back in the ‘40s mixed huge (100 thousand pound plus) lots of the nitrocellulose used for propellant. Nitrocellulose has volatile components such as water, ether etc that degrade with the passage of time. Even properly stored, nobody could have imagined the the Iowa’s would serve so long. I recall from a Naval Institute Press book that by the 80’s, gunnery at Vieques was giving indications of variation of muzzle velocities in the neighborhood of 30-40 feet per second, well out of design specifications. The Navy had to re-blend the propellant and rebag in order to get accuracy of the guns back to their prime.
I was a Marine assigned at Marine Barracks NWS Earle from 81 to 84 and actually saw the Navy and civilian workers remanufacturing the powder bags like you described.
I would love for you to make a video telling the story. I know it is fantastic story.. How did father react to the letter …? Thanks for sharing your fathers US NAVY history. Bless you and your fathers…heart.
My nephew watched the Jersey move real estate in Lebanon. From the deck of a (LPH) USMC chopper bird farm. In '87 our port visit in Haifa got side tracked to replace the Stark. I guess that was OK. The Crommelin was inside the Gulf in '85. I wanted to go through Suez in '87 and the Panama also. Then in 1992 Saddam and friends messed up my plans again. But I did get to watch the Jersey moved dirt around on San Nicholas Island while the Hepburn was waiting to fire the 5 inch 54 in '84. In 85 I got sent to the Crommelin. Got two battle Es and somehow managed to get a Good Conduct. LOL.
As an Air Force dump truck driver once told me; "We are very accurate and precise - we hit the ground 100% of the time, every time!" _(bombardier on a buff)_
@@danduffy7974 did you ever serve at Pease? I was there a lot in the Civil Air Patrol enjoying K-rats & making the crews of kKC-135s nervous with a bunch of other Civil Air Patrol kids. 😄
And for another fun fact about this, I crawled thru all nine barrels many times to check out areas that I found during the bore scoping. For the first firings we were not given any lead to lubricate the barrels so also spent many hours inside them to remove copper fouling with a chisel and hammer had one piece that was 10 inches long, there's a Plack out there somewhere with it on it.
@@Swindle1984 Skinny teenagers and young men. The same way tankers tended to be shorter. A friend of mine got kicked from the Irish cavalry years ago. His legs didn't fit as a driver. Chieftain had the same story, he went to the US.
Ryan, we started deploying velocimeters on our 155mm howitzer in the Army in the early to mid 1980s and their introduction drastically improved the weapons accuracy. I can imagine how having incorrectly repacked powder and the lack of velocimeters would really mess up accuracy.
While I was trained as an NCO to direct fire, never dealt directly with any form of artillery personally (as in firing pit) until quite late in my military career and was helping our 120mm mortar crew. They generously allowed me to drop a few rounds. Suffice it to say, the drills impressed me, the incessant checking level and angles also imbued trust. Everyone repeating the firing order also impressed me, as it ensured no errors should make it to directing the gun. Two men computing and if both agree, only then do firing orders go out, again, imbued trust. Some months after that, got to help a 155 crew that was badly short staffed set up the gun for a PR display. Hell of a team! I figured out what had to go where and how from the mortar experience, so we seamlessly set up, they actually did level out the gun - on an airfield ramp for display, out of pure habit from properly drilling. Came in handy in the wars, as before, I'd have wondered if the rounds would land on target or short. Trust is critical and saves lives. Crews knew me on the radio, as I'd give correction by mils, when a FIST wasn't available. I rotated with every team, even our sniper teams, just so I'd be fluent in their capabilities, even if I had to play Private for that time. Only weapon I declined familiarizing with was the Barrett. No thanks, my spine would never forgive me. Everything else, yeah, I've fired it or crewed it. My personal favorite weapon still remains my heat seeking moisture missile though. :P
I was a Marine in Viet Nam,1967/1968, and was told that the New Jersey fired over my head. I remember vivid greenish flashes out at sea, then quiet rustling sounds overhead, then the earth trembling slightly. I was about seven or eight miles north of DaNang RVN. I loved it!
Don't forget Am. Willis "Ching" Lee; NEVER took Bu'Ord's ratings on powder ratings as to range. He test fired each gun, and very carefully noted fall of shots. Posted correction tables for ranging in the ships he commanded. As a result, he won most accurate accolades in the Navy many times. Just what you might expect for a very decorated competition rifle and pistol shooter.
When lee fired a full broadside at the kirishima off savo island at about 8,000 yards it is believed he hit it with all nine barrels. And the beating went on and on. His name should be as heralded as George Washington.
Lee was amazing. In the months leading up to Guadalcanal Lee & the other members of his gun club (USS Washington’s Captain and & chief gunnery officer were, like Lee, experienced marksman and gun enthusiasts who were also exceptionally intelligent & enthusiastic and radar technology. Most 16” armed battleships in the USN during WWII could get off two shots per gun per minute if they needed to. By the time Washington faced off against Kirishima her gun crews had become so efficient that they’d chopped reload time down to 15-20 seconds per gun for aimed shots. I doubt they could have sustained that ROF for more than a few minutes but if you surprised an enemy at short/medium range that’s all you need. When the wreck of Kirishima was rediscovered it became apparent that Lee had severely undercounted the number of main battery hits. In his initial report Lee estimated that he’s hit Kirishima about 9 times with his main battery. Close inspection of the wreck indicates that he’d probably tagged her 20-21 times, including some likely through & throughs (shots that went in on side and came out the other without detonating. Yamato and Musashi wouldn’t have been able to survive that many super-heavy 16” AP shell hits at that range. Their thicker armor would have just given the shells more time to ignite their fuses.
@@frederickking1660I’d have to go back & look up the records but I don’t think it was all 9. Five to seven was the estimate that I recall. Lee almost certainly did undercount the number of main battery hits, though. In his initial report Lee concluded that he’d hit Kirishima about 9 times at Savo. When the wreck was rediscovered and examined it became clear that he’d hit the IJN battleship more than twice as many times. A number of shells from the first salvo his Kirishima dove and hit Kirishima below the waterline. After Washington adjusted its firing angle there were some shots recorded as misses that likely tore through the armor on one side & out the other without detonating. The more recent forensic analysis suggests that Kirishima was probably hit about 21 times.
Ship I was on was already in Beirut and rendezvoused with NJ when she arrived. After all the weeks at sea to get to the Med, NJ was a rust bucket., but still impressive to look at.
My favorite field knife is commonly referred to by me as "trusty rusty". It's ancient, it does its job if properly maintained. And never a speck of rust on that knife was allowed. Just as my brothers and sisters in the Navy wouldn't allow to accumulate on a warship. But, ancient, yeah, still worthy, if they actually got the powder charge increments right. But then, Ordinance loved to fuck things up, turning the increments into new versions of the Mark 14 and eventually, claiming a turret and crew of a gun on Iowa. Then, the Admiral that designed that disastrous increment change lead the investigation and turned it into a witch hunt, further disgracing the Navy. Not an opinion, recorded history, both red book version and public release versions.
Was a kid at this time. That event set my course for the future, and when I joined the USN later, I thought it was pretty awesome to be serving at the same time as the Iowas...never thought that would be a possibility. Ironically, my first duty station was on a ship built before BB62, which was USS Fulton, AS11.
There was a TV news broadcast that quoted Lebanese officials as complaining about the New Jersey's guns tearing up the town. That particular incident followed some chaotic firing by Soviet-made anti-aircraft guns. The reporter and his cameraman were guided to the damage "caused by the NJ's big-guns." The walls of the damaged small buildings were still standing. The officials pointed to some holes that were about 23mm and 57mm in diameter (perfectly round) and said those were caused by the New Jersey's 16" guns. I believe a Navy spokesman said the NJ had not even fired its 16" guns that day. It seemed unlikely that small poorly built buildings would still be standing after being hit with a 2000-lb shell or that such a shell would leave a nice neat 57mm hole in the wall. Other reporters said the AAA gunners had no fire disciple and shot their weapons in just about every direction, including into their own buildings.
Yes, 23 and 57mm are very common Soviet-made AA-gun calibers, both have been used by the Finnish defence forces. I was trained as a ZU-23-2 gunner during my conscription back in the early 90:s. The 57 was already becoming obsolete then but still in use by the reserves, I saw those being fired. At least here the standard practice for 23 was to línk one AP round for every 3 HE rounds, of which there were two kinds, with and without a tracer so there would be alternately one tracer and one "dark" round in the belt. The clean round holes would probably be made by the AP rounds which are basically just lumps of steel with driving bands of copper and a tracer at the base while the HE-rounds are fitted with very sensitive contact fuses and would explode immediately upon any impact to cause maximal damage on thin skinned aircraft so they would probably cause larger, ragged holes with shrapnel downrange. The ZU-23-2 has a theoretical rate of fire of 1000 rpm/barrel (though the ammo cans only hold 50 rounds/barrel but they are very quick to change by a competent loader) so I think firing one at a building would be quite devastating. I once saw a short (2 or 3 rounds/barrel like we would fire at practice to conserve ammunition) burst accidentally (the gunner forgot to lock the elevation before firing and inadvertently yanked the crank while pushing the trigger pedal so he shot low) hit a retaining wall made of logs below a target and there were lots of airborne splinters after that.
@@Murgoh the 23 and 57mm are good weapons, well, save when used by Russian conscripts. In Finnish hands, well, the targets are Finished. ;) Nothing but respect for those in the Winter War!
A co-worker of mine was on the barracks roof as over-watch before the bombing. He got ordered to change to a nearby building and was a couple hundred yards away when the bomber blew it up...and the blast tossed him quite a ways and he was never 'right' afterwards. Definitely messed him up which led to excessive drinking and dying in a car crash in '88. It's a small ugly world sometimes.
Two Marines from 1/8 Comm were sent up on the roof of the BLT building on the night of October 22nd, 1983 to call in a Medevac mission for a Marine that had been injured in a firefight that evening. When the mission secured, the Communications Officer, then 1st LT. Joseph Boccia went up on the roof and told them that they might as well stay up there as it was “Hot as Hell downstairs”. LT. Boccia went back down to his quarters and was killed in the blast the next morning. Joe and Bob rode the roof down as the building collapsed, climbed off the rubble and spent the next couple of days searching for survivors, bodies and pieces of bodies. They were then flown to Germany to help identify the dead. We lost Bob in ‘14 to a heart attack, Joe is alive and well. I talked to him yesterday.
I am so sorry man. I had a friend who ended up just missing that trip. He went into Intel instead. I have never forgotten the men who died there. In my opinion the State Department put ROE on the Marines that got them killed. I joined after that my life was never the same.
Hi Ryan, I've watched and enjoyed many of your Battleship New Jersey videos. I have a good friend who served on the New Jersey during the Beirut deployment. He served in fire control for the 16" guns. I sent him a link to this video and asked for his comments. Here is his reply. "Hi Roger, I appreciate your interest in the ship. My years on board were amazing. I don’t know who this guy is that is narrating, but he misses on a few crucial points. First, the crew was trained well before deployment and even prior to commissioning. Once out of dry dock we began sea trials that lasted months. Sea trials were a strenuous test of all systems from engineering to weapons. We trained extensively with the main battery guns at San Clemente island. We were even protested on our return to port for firing on the goats that inhabited the island. There were old salts brought back to assist in training on the systems. This included radar, fire control computers and systems. After commissioning and prior to deployment the ship earned the “Battle E” ribbon. E for Excellence. The problem with the powder bags was identified and corrected during those sea trials. Second, there were velocimeters installed in each turret and in both plotting rooms during the refit. That was part of my personal training in the plotting room even while still being in dry dock. It would have been completely irresponsible to send such a vessel on deployment under the conditions that this gentleman claims. As far as the firing accuracy we laid down in Syria, again I disagree with him. The day after our firing mission the Marine spotters and Naval air support came on board and shared reconnaissance photos with us in the plotting room. The CO and XO were with us and the report was glowing and showed precise and deadly accuracy. It was a long cruise but we did get breaks from the gun line for some of the greatest port calls in the world. Thanks again for your interest. Kenny"
Let me think... where was I back on September 26, 1983?? Oh, yeah... I was a Marine on the line in Beirut. We had arrived in May and during June and July, strays and pot shots were the rule of thumb. But during August things started heating up and at the end of August the shit hit the fan. After a month being involved in heavy fighting and taking casualties, the New Jersey showed up. She was an awesome sight cruising up and down the coast. We waited and waited to see those big guns cut loose... the bombing happened on October 23rd and still her guns remained silent. During the 3rd week of November we were relieved in place by a fresh unit (sort of... they were the Marines who had landed on Grenada) and we boarded ships and sailed away from Beirut. Shortly after arriving back at Camp Lejeune we heard about the New Jersey opening up. It was hard to cheer though after what we had been through and then not even getting the chance to see her serving up some payback. I'll never forget the sight of her though.
Another issue with the WWII powder supplies was improper storage between deployments. This was a BIG issue in the Iowa incident, as powder bags were removed from the ship and stored in unventilated barges in hot weather affecting the powder.
@@THOMAS81Z well, I've used TNT from the 1950's in the Army. Why replace that which is stable and considered fit for use? The issue with storage is a valid concern, but incorrectly loading the bags, bigger concern, as the propellant won't be consumed inside of the barrel behind the round, but be ejected still igniting and basically, making only a light show, decreasing range and performance. The Navy had tons of storage issues, some coming into play and causing disastrous a aircraft carrier fire. RDX and heat don't get along, the composition in the carrier fire actually had begun breaking down and literally leaking out of the bombs when the incident triggered a fire that enveloped the bombs (massively simplified here).
I was Weapons Officer in USS IOWA 1983-1986, and Mr Harold Jones, the Naval Weapons Center expert on 16" gunnery frequently visited Iowa as we became the big gun expert ship. He briefed me in New Jersey's performance at San Clemente gunnery range using the powder charges she had at commissioning which was unmixed 16"/50 with the 1800-pound HE round. He told me the variation in initial velocity seen there was up to 120 feet per second, which means there had to have been velocimeters aboard BEFORE Lebanon. I was visiting the ship off Panama when the order to go to Lebanon was received and transited aboard the ship as she passed through the canal to the Atlantic side where I debarked to return to IOWA still in the yard at Pascagoula. As a result of the San Clemente experience, a program was initiated to take three grand lots of 16"/45 powder from WWII and mis them together in order to achieve a consistent initial velocity WITH THE LIGHTER HE PROJECTILES. We could NOT fire this powder, designated I think D346 or D846, with the heavy weight projectiles because it burned so much faster than 16"/50 powder. After I commented to the New York Times reporter aboard that this was the reason NJ shot so badly, the Secretary of the Navy sent us a message asking if we could prove it. We sent back a message saying sure, if you can give us some dud HE projectiles (no explosive 16" projectiles were allowed at Vieques Island target range) all within 20 pounds of each other. At this time the Navy did not have any practice projectiles for the HE round - we only had the 2700-pound rounds in dud form. We ended up meeting a landing craft off Roosevelt Roads loaded with 50 of these specially prepared projectiles sent in a C-5A in the personal custody of the Commanding Officer NAD Crane and proceeded to fire the longest range shore bombardment in battleship history making the celebrated pattern which could partial fill the center of and overlay of the Pentagon. I have a copy and am happy to provide it to you. And that, my friend, is why NJ fired inaccurately. If you were to grab a bag of remixed powder, you would know that the grains were jumbled in there because you could feel the lumpiness of the grains in the relatively untight bag.
Great post. I was watching a vid recently about the Misty FACs wherin the narrator mentioned poor accuracy from offshore ships firing on selected FAC-selected onshore targets. No idea if that was true but, if it was true, I wonder if they were experiencing similar powder problems. Sounded as if WWII-level accuracy was not even being achieved, not sure.
"Between the wars" my dad served as a reservist in the coastal defense artillery. The hard some good sized guns, of course, as they were intended to fight off any enemy warship. My dad said that at least on one occasion they opened the power bags and manually mixed up the "powder" and then put it back in the bags This ensured that the bags were uniform and a few test shots would "Calibrate" things.
Couldn't do that with the 16 inch monster bags. As he said, they were designed to be stacked for consistent burn while the shell was still inside of the barrel. Just dumping shit back in randomly would leave propellant leaving the barrel either just beginning to burn, partially burned or unignited and wasted, losing pressure to propel the round properly and consistently. Small guns, yeah, granular powder would work that way, with decreasing performance based upon storage conditions and for shore batteries, burned off and replaced.
Two Comments, Ryan. I knew a USNR Cook that was called up to serve on the USS New Jersey for Beirut. He told about a young Marine that was always complaining about the chow. One day this Marine's Gunny Sargeant came to my friend and asked if their was a room nearby he could use. One day as the young Marine stood in the chow line, the Gunny's arm came out of the room and grabbed the young Marine and quickly pulled him inside and the door closed. Much banging, yelling and other sounds could be heard. Then the door opened and the young Marine was shoved back into the chow line and the door closed again. The young Marine never again complained about the chow! When we were working together I would kid him about having to start making an egg souffle for the Captain just as they were to be starting a main gun firing mission! Sadly, I have learned he passed away last year. RIP my conductor and good friend. It was never boring working with you. The other story is from my MI Army National Guard First Sargeant. He was a Marine then serving in northern South Vietnam. He heard many rounds from the USS New jersey screaming overhead on their way to target. That made quite an impression on him.
There was an entire program at crane to remix powder and bag in those blue polyurethane cases. I belive the mixing between lots was stopped because the velocity was inconsistent.
Polyurethane is highly static prone, so it must've been coated. But, you can't mix powder in a bag full of pellets, which the 16 inchers were made up as. At a certain dimensional size, one has to resort to pellets, as powder would simply rupture the chamber. It's pretty much an inverse of a rocket at that point, fuel behind the round like a rocket, but not going with and still propelling the rocket after leaving the barrel. And I've designed rockets and some rounds for personal usage. Combustion rate, pressure curves, yeah, it's complicated.
This for an answer to this person's question. @thomasshoe92. On pre commissioning A GMG2 attached to turret 2, after cleaning barrels for first time we found in center gun a large flame wash approximately 1-foot up rifling from chamber. This flame wash was 1/2 inch deep approximately 2 inches wide by 14 inches long. Varius of us was sent to schools for extra training, I was the only one sent to school for bore scoping of the barrels from the 16-inch turrets. on returning to the ship, we commenced checking out all 9-gun barrels to see in what condition they were in and the amount of wear each had. I found no damage to any other barrel but center gun turret 2. the bore scope is like a microscope and can magnify quite a bit. close looking at the flame wash i notice what appeared to be a fine crack on following the line I found it to go completely around the barrel. on finding this I reported to my superiors, they did not want to believe me as this would condemn this barrel from firing. About three weeks later a representative from Dahlgren came to the ship, he then went into the chamber to see the damage but was claustrophobic (came out right away). after calming him down, I went in feet first then he came after. then we inspected the damage. He then concurred with my findings and stated the barrel was condemned. after returning from Lebanon cruise, during which center gun was not fired. The ship returned to the shipyard and while there we replaced the center gun barrel. At that time I was leading FirstClass GMG1 for the division turret2. To replace the barrel a jig was built to carry the 100ton barrel and slide the bad barrel out. then the jig was taken to the pier where the old barrel was exchanged for the new barrel, then placed on the ship and aligned precisely. Then the new barrel was slid back into the turret and mated to the breech. I have no photos of this and have not found any. will answer any more questions. Reply
All of the U.S. fast battleships experienced significant shell dispersion over their careers. It was approximately 1.9% of range for a nine- gun salvo and was something which no fire control system could compensate for. This is one reason why none of the Iowa class battleships ever scored a 'confirmed' main battery hit on any vessel of destroyer size or larger during the Second World War- and is a likely reason why Iowa failed to sink Nevada. I've seen a number of film clips of some of the Iowas in the 80s firing one gun at a time, which would eliminate dispersion. Still and all, the Iowas were among the finest capital ships ever constructed- and they were real beauties.
@@johngaither9263 Washington was not an Iowa class battleship, and the night action in which she fatally damaged Kirishima began at short range- and dropped to point blank range. Shell dispersion is a factor which becomes significant at medium ranges and increases as the range increases.
Many years ago a friend was telling me about his experience in Korea as a Marine CPL forward observer. His company was almost wiped out. He and 4 others were the only survivors. He was able to get a radio working and called for help. A battleship off of the coast was available. There was about 600 chinese in the valley below. Howie said that in just a few salvos the chinese were obliterated. He did say that the concussion that he felt was awful from more than 1/2 mile away.
And at Iwo Jima, the Japanese survived a protracted and repeated artillery bombardment. The difference was, the Japanese general ordered construction of cave and tunnel based positions to shelter from artillery and gave orders against suicidal charges. Troops in the open, not much chance of survival, under proper shelter and cover, excellent chance. Still, I'd rather not be in the neighborhood when any such charge, be it gun or bomb delivered arrives. Experience a half ton of explosive detonating some time, you'll heartfully agree! We're talking so loud that you pretty much can't hear it, but you feel it throughout your body and especially in your chest.
Jersey was with Ike off Lebanon, I was on Ike then, weapons techs come over and tell us every time she bombards Lebanon stuff breaks. Lots of work to do then. We flew F14s to take before and after snaps. Some were snaps were quite interesting
I remember people talking about how the New Jersey couldn't seem to hit its targets and how the government of Lebanon had complained and told the Navy to go away. Big hoopla! I never heard the real reason. Than you.
Ya' know you could probably sell replica 3" powder grains in your store. They could be cheap plastic parts. You could 3D print some prototypes. Then find a plastic molder. Or, maybe the OEM still has the molds that you could borrow. (That is a common practice among plastic molders. The customer retains ownership of the molds while the molder stores and operates them.) I'll bet some of your listeners have 3D printers and would print some out for you. They would just need the dimensions and would not need to be mil-spec accurate. It would be good to get the color correct. Depending on demand you could even set up a distributed manufacturing scheme. Although the cost would be high for 3D printing all of them. (hmmm... Adam Savage?) Just a thought, love your work.
The powder was extruded with hollow cores through them IIRC and not cast. For the numbers they would likely sell...the most economical way to reproduce them would be 3D printing which could reproduce them very nicely.
@@recoilrob324 I'd love to have a couple of live pellets to experiment with, with an eye for rocketry. With obviously, taming those wild beasts down a tad. Get a high power engine working off of those, make new history, using old technology and mixing new and old tech is one thing I'm great at. That suggested, I'm in no hurry to do that. It'd just be so utterly cool to do it. Currently though, I've no place to safely secure such pellets, as I live in an apartment building now. Back when I had a house and garage, it'd be fine, as storage in a modest underground storage chamber would've been trivial to build.
Winner winner chicken dinner. Those knuckleheads led by CAPT Miceli at Crane inexplicably thought that it was a good idea to take propellant from many lots of production and mix them. This flies in the face of every tenet of accurate shooting, no matter what size bullet you're shooting. The Gunnery divisions of Iowa class battleships (and likely any Navy ship with large caliber Naval artillery) kept meticulous shot-by-shot records of every bullet sent downrange so that they could discern patterns of ballistic behavior of production lots of both projectiles and propellant. (There is a specific name for this book which I can't recall at the moment by maybe Ryan will tell us.) So all that hard-learned specific knowledge went right out the window with the remix. The navy added the DR810 radar (calculated the muzzle velocity) to each turret to try to get back some of that knowledge.
No Iowa-class ship has ever demonstrated that their main-guns can be accurate at any significant range. In 1948, the Navy used the Nevada as a dummy target-ship in a live-fire exercise designed to demonstrate the capabilities of the various big-gun calibers of the post-WWII Navy. The Iowa was given the order to fire for effect on the Nevada during the early afternoon of July 30th at a range of about 16 NM. There was a crew of camera-men and spotters on-board a light-cruiser a couple miles away from the Nevada that were supposed to be observing and recording the effects of the shelling. After two hours of continuous salvos, the Iowa radioed the vice-admiral overseeing the exercise and asked for permission to pause the exercise for an hour to change the watch and troubleshoot some electrical issues. After this was granted, the Iowa radioed the spotting crew on the cruiser and asked them: "how's the enemy looking?" To which came the response: "we can report no observed damage or effect. But, if she was crewed, you put one hell of a scare into them."
There were lost of reasons. Inconsistent powder charges, insufficient practice, inferior optics in the rangefinders, inferior radar and slow aiming data affecting reaiming changes in the turret.
One correction to Mr. Graham's recollection. He refers to Chief Gorchinski as Master Chief. He was a Chief Petty Officer (E-7) not a Master Chief. ETC Michael Gorchinski.
Thanks to those who served and comments below. Nice work with adding in small interview clips. Minor request - add a small on screen of the persons name and speciality. With that for others - there is usually an interview video with the person here on NJ TH-cam page. - batch of those of varied ages and quantities.
you do a great job making the history come to life by taking us to the spot the guy stood and how it was done you see a ship send a salvo but i never knew how many men where in the turret to make it happen like Hollywood
An interesting discussion would be if they had to start making powder for the ship's guns again, what would they do differently here in 2023? Is there a different method? maybe an upgrade to the composition?
It would probably be pretty much the same, if they could make the bags lighter they might but they would probably keep the bags the same size to work with all the machinery. If they were really on it they would make an autoloader
Interesting. I recall know Air Force Civilians in the Early 1990s complaining the new bombs being made to replenish stock used in Desert Storm were using old / existing composition when there was newer better chemical composition they felt should be used.
@@wfoj2 they might use a different composition for weight or less wear on the liners but the pressure of the explosion and the size of the bags would have to stay the same for the 16in guns. Maybe a sabot round could be made or guided mutitions, cluster bombs, incindiary, some kind of drone launcher, a rocket assisted round, nuclear rounds, chemical/bio rounds, airburst rounds, depleted uranium sabot. But the size of the round and the explosion pushing it out has to be the same or else they would need to re make the gun.
The powder was stored in barges... They had strip chart temperature recorders. And some of the powder was stored at high temperature beyond the approved, safe temperatures... That's how the IOWA accident happened... So the guns were not rebarreled when she was re-activated??? Wow. When 16 in gun barrels are rifled, they take a twist. There was a machine to straighten them at Naval Ordnance Station Louisville in the 1980s still. I was told, there was one old guy left that new how to do it...
On the statement that we were inexperienced on the workings of the guns and the ship! Maybe you need to do an episode on all the embarrassing things that happened.
They were having a lot of problems with not only the powder bags but the flash paper between the powder bag which is what caused the explosion on the the one Battleship, which they attempted to charge one of the Dead Sailors with. Which was an absolute travesty of Justice. Not only was that not the only time it ever happened, as it was reported. It is understood that it did happen a number of times during WWII. The other problem you have is a 22 to 2500 lb shell does not have to be particularly accurate.
8:59 Wouldn't the "center" barrel of the battery technically depend on which side of the ship the target position(s) are on because of the turrets not being evenly spaced? In the event of subsequent reactivations, looking at it this way would share the burden of firing spotting rounds between two barrels? It'd be interesting to see which breaks first.
+/- 2:43 Are the windows shown above the podium the ones you recently discovered ? I looks as is a couple have been removed [likely for the secret service to better observe.
@@BattleshipNewJersey Thanks for the reply. I actually did consider that for a moment, but figured it was better to mention it than not. Sorry for the bother.
Here's some comments from Tony D (owner of NavWeaps website) during a propellent discussion on one of the NavWeaps message boards. Following USS New Jersey's poor gunnery performance off Lebanon in 1984, NSWC at Dahlgren, VA, conducted a gunnery improvement program. One of the outcomes of this program was that D-846 was remixed in lots of about 100,000 lbs. in order to distribute the varying propellant grains evenly. It was then rebagged to a tolerance of 1/10 of a pound per bag (roughly +/- 2 grains). These lots were test fired in at least two guns for charge assessments and the resulting round-to-round variation was very low. D-839 was found to still be within the original +/- 10fps variation acceptance standards when used with the 2,700 lbs. projectile and was not rebagged. It should be noted that most firing missions were expected to be with HC rounds, not APC rounds and this was the case during all four wars (plus Lebanon) in which the Iowa class participated.
We really should not have been flinging a Chevrolet at enemy combatants in the 1980s. I can understand that at times we do need to use more expensive armaments, but an Isuzu or even a Yugo would have likely been sufficient in that case. I presume it might have even had more range, and in particular the Yugo may have been more terrifying. Also, the way that a Chevrolet was built back then, after a 23 mile parabolic flight the enemy might be able to buff out the scratches, replace a few pieces, and put it back on the road. The Isuzu or Yugo would have been more similar to a cluster bomb.
There's a TH-cam video about the Iowa coverup. They had old power that would self ignite under pressure or shock.. Video has great explanation of its testing.
Yes. Also the officers were changing the total charge - in an effort to increase range as an "experiment" over their at sea deployment. The leading "Navy theory" is problems of a powder charge bag being opened by tears (bags weakened by the "remixing"), or torn by something like "over - ramming". In reality the Navy still is trying to blame the gun crew for something, anything... (but never really the officers :"')
Even a velocymeter wouldn't have helped much with those messed up bags that create a different velocity with every shot. But it would have helped to locate the issue pretty fast when V0 is different at every barrel with every shot.
They had to test that they were still good. It wasn't a matter of fixing them it was that the test involved ripping open X number of bags and they didn't put them back the same way.
Admiral Lee worked hard to get the powder standardized to deliver the same velocity every shot. He was a world glass marksman with pistol, rifle and naval guns
If some shots were going farther than others, that could be caused by faulty powder burning with too much pressure. That could also have caused the barrel liner to crack.
I have pix of the console at the Turret Officer's station in the turret, and the teletype-style readout in forward main plot. The antennae are still mounted to each of the three turrets, a rounded capsule looking projection mounted at the center of the turret very close to the faceplate. TH-cam does not make it easy to post your own pix.
dumb question, how often do you think someone nailed their knee on that first aid kit while the turret was spinning, while I don't think it's something you would do more then once, I know it would totally happen to me.
I was on the Independence offshore when the New Jersey was given to OK to fire on Lebanon. The told us she was going to "sling Volkswagens" into Lebanon. As a side note....the reason this and the air strike on December 5th occurred was because of the system I worked on. Our squadron, VF-32, flew recon mission over Beirut, F14 Tomcats using the "TARPS" Pod. They were fired upon multiple times and the warning went out that if they continued, the New Jersey would retaliate. I believe they tried to shoot down a TARPS plane from VF-31 on the Kennedy. The next day the New Jersey cleared its throat. As a side note....my dad was on the USS Pasadena (CL-65) during WW2 and operated along side the New Jersey for almost his entire time in the pacific. He thought it was kind of cool that his son's ship operated with the New Jersey too.
I knew a former GM1 who served on the NJ during Vietnam that got called back before they finished the retrofit. Made him either a Sr. Chief, or Chief WO (forget which)if he agreed to so many years.
I was over there as in Beirut when the headquarters was destroyed, I have a list of all people that were killed there. The ship I was on was Uss Austin lpd4. I remember a map of Bb62 Uss New Jerseys journey being written as her progress was made, oh the photos I have, the vessels people etc.
Gunnery, from a scientific standpoint, is fairly simple. But to be accurate, everything has to be as consistent as possible. Does make me wonder what the chamber pressures are like with the 16" guns aboard Nee Jersey, what the allowable tolerances are, etc. Nearly all modern tanks have a thermal shroud around the barrels, to keep the sun from heating the barrels unevenly (higher temps on top, lower underneath, resulting in gun tube droop--enough to impact accuracy over tank engagement ranges, of up to 4000m or so). But I've never seen any such thing on a naval gun . . .
I'm wondering does the ship still have it's gunnery computer installed? And if such was mechanical analogue in function? I've seen some old us naval training videos covering the basics of how such worked. Dials to set inputs, , driving gears, including differentals, cams. And mechanical integrators etc.
During the Korean War, my future Father In Law was a electronics maintenance Warrant Officer aboard the New Jersey. His roommate was the officer in charge of making the firing calculations for the big guns. They were very accurate putting shells where needed.... The roommate ended up being my FIL's best friend and later the god parent of my future wife...
Didn't they already have a scale or aerate if Deterioration " on thise bags and determined how much of a velocity change differentiation when compared the the 16/45 guns on the South Dakota & North Carolina class ships to determine how many and which combination of bags to use to reach the desired velocity and range???
Thanks for this article, I had always wondered why the Lebanese claimed the Americans couldn’t shoot straight or hit what they aimed at. I lived and worked in Lebanon from ’94 through ’97, my assignment started as head of the survey team for rehabilitation of the PSTN ( telephone network ) and continued as design and implementation engineer. It was almost a joke with the Lebanese that the safest place to be when the Americans were shooting was where their target was located.
Probably because the propellant charges, the stored shells were very old. Also the fire control system probably needed recalibration. Battleships were extremely useful in shore bombardment in WW2, Korea, and VietNam, offering much more destructive power (large land artillery is 155mm(approx 6 inches) 175mm (approx 7 inches) 208mm (8 inch howitzer)), the 16 inch high explosive rounds put those in the shade.
The Navy certainly sorted things out by the time Desert Storm rolled around! Once they’d figured out how to tie in a laser rangefinder to the old analog firing computer & worked out how to use drones as spotters (a harbinger of things to come!) the Missouri & Wisconsin those 16” guns became deadly accurate.
Chevrolet ? I saw a Volkswagen Beetle on a scale with a 16" shell I think that was at Nauticus in Norfolk. Which Chevrolet model most closely matches a VW Beetle? A Vega is 2270 lbs.
I noted a typo on Ryan's shirt, compared to the original. Ryan's "Chevrolet" is not capitalized, whereas the original is capitalized. The ones in the store also appear to be not capitalized.
What happened to the spent shells that missed their target and landed in the water? Are they still live or did they explode under water at a certain depth?
Hmm, several countries went in to Lebanon on a peacekeeping mission, then the US decided to choose sides and started shelling into one of the most heavily populated cities in the Middle East, from this ancient battleship. No surprise what happened next…
I flew F14's off of USS Independence off Beirut when New Jersey was there. I capped over head New Jersey and saw her fire those huge guns into the Beirut country side...It was an awesome sight to behold....
My dad was the radar officer on the New Jersey at the end of WWII. By the way I tried to order a polo shirt but cannot specify size before checking out. How else could I place an order?
I was on the USS Kennedy at the time. We were in port in Haifa watching a thunderstorm to the north when we realized it wasn't a storm, it was New Jersey shelling.
Were they firing on the Palestinian refugee camps?
*Reminds me of the sarcastic lyrics to the caissons go rolling along; **_Was it high? Was it low? Where the hell did that one go?!_*
My late father probably qualified these lots of powder in 1951-1955 when he was main battery officer at Dahlgren. After he retired he ended up at the Naval Safety Center in Norfolk VA where he was the Navy's ranking expert on the 16" Naval Rifles.
A relative of mine in the army in vietnam as a ground grunt used to praise the accuracy of naval (battleship) artillery in hitting everything accurately they designated. He said it was infinitely more accurate than ground artillery and they used that resource whenever they could.
The Battleships could be in the (relatively) close to targets on the calm waters near shore in Vietnam, the "fire control computers" can really use their long range sighting inputs to enhance accuracy. It takes a lot of practice and team work to reach that level of accuracy (and some other ... efforts on ships like Iowa "experiment" with propellants and loadings to get those "improvements" - it cost sailors lives).
I could buy that argument. Compared to today's vessels, two different things.
@@williestyle35what are you talking about? The Iowa explosion was caused by the old powder getting hit with the ram too hard no?
@@Synergy7StudiosYes, but the old powder shouldn't have been used in the first place. It was an "improvement" by one of the sailors, using the old powder from WW2 to increase range and accuracy. The problem? It specifically had written on the powder bags to not use with the 2700lb shells. Solution? Use 5 bags instead of six. Add a hydraulic rammer that was known to move erratically, the sailor using it being inexperienced and there's the recipe for a disaster.
@@durt214 that makes absolutely no sense, the old ww2 powder was the ONLY powder they had, and if anything age would hurt accuracy.
I remember Drach talking about the messed up charges. Another great bureau of ordnance moment
Right up there with their greatest hits like the Mark 14 torpedo
ORDNANCE dammit!
@@pb68slab18 Calm down!
@@donkeyboy585 naw, "ORDINANCE, dammit! I meant GOOD ordinance, dammitalltohell!". ;)
I remember collecting unexploded TNT from a demolition crater, returning it to the crater, the charges being dated 1957 and moderately corroded. Had a few gentle words of advice for the O-1 that signed for the explosives about inspection upon receipt and rejection of hazardous ordinance.
Seriously, I was gentle. He was a good kid, didn't know better and needed that advice, which he took to heart, as he did take good care of those under him.
BuOrd no longer existed in the 80s! It would have been twice-reorganized, into Naval Ordnance Systems Command by then
Ryan, I was under the impression that the reason for the variation in the fall of shot was powder degradation. The Navy back in the ‘40s mixed huge (100 thousand pound plus) lots of the nitrocellulose used for propellant. Nitrocellulose has volatile components such as water, ether etc that degrade with the passage of time. Even properly stored, nobody could have imagined the the Iowa’s would serve so long. I recall from a Naval Institute Press book that by the 80’s, gunnery at Vieques was giving indications of variation of muzzle velocities in the neighborhood of 30-40 feet per second, well out of design specifications. The Navy had to re-blend the propellant and rebag in order to get accuracy of the guns back to their prime.
I was a Marine assigned at Marine Barracks NWS Earle from 81 to 84 and actually saw the Navy and civilian workers remanufacturing the powder bags like you described.
Awesome. I live way down in Southern NJ and know about Earl.
I remember my Dad getting a recall letter for the battleships. He was a BTC and retired in 77. Couple days later he got his 30yr letter.
I would love for you to make a video telling the story. I know it is fantastic story.. How did father react to the letter …? Thanks for sharing your fathers US NAVY history. Bless you and your fathers…heart.
@@tejastiger61 that's likely the origin of the Vela event. ;)
Pure gamma radiation being emitted vocally.
@@tejastiger61stop lying your dad wasn't recalled he's not tough like u think he's probably an old sissy
My nephew watched the Jersey move real estate in Lebanon. From the deck of a (LPH) USMC chopper bird farm.
In '87 our port visit in Haifa got side tracked to replace the Stark. I guess that was OK. The Crommelin was inside the Gulf in '85.
I wanted to go through Suez in '87 and the Panama also.
Then in 1992 Saddam and friends messed up my plans again.
But I did get to watch the Jersey moved dirt around on San Nicholas Island while the Hepburn was waiting to fire the 5 inch 54 in '84.
In 85 I got sent to the Crommelin. Got two battle Es and somehow managed to get a Good Conduct. LOL.
As an Air Force dump truck driver once told me; "We are very accurate and precise - we hit the ground 100% of the time, every time!" _(bombardier on a buff)_
They never hit the water once? That's impressive.
I was AF in the 70,s spent a lot of time with the BUFF.
@@danduffy7974 did you ever serve at Pease? I was there a lot in the Civil Air Patrol enjoying K-rats & making the crews of kKC-135s nervous with a bunch of other Civil Air Patrol kids. 😄
@@HM2SGT I was at Kincheloe in the UP of Mich72/76 we had B52,s Kc135,s and F111,s colder than a witches tit!! in winter.
As a “dump truck” nav system specialist, we could put the ‘dumb bombs’ within 50 ft of the target.
And for another fun fact about this, I crawled thru all nine barrels many times to check out areas that I found during the bore scoping. For the first firings we were not given any lead to lubricate the barrels so also spent many hours inside them to remove copper fouling with a chisel and hammer had one piece that was 10 inches long, there's a Plack out there somewhere with it on it.
Are you still thin enough to fit in a barrel?
Not thin anymore still probably could still make it. 16 inch's pretty good size hole.@@ColKorn1965
How on earth could a person fit inside a gun barrel for a projectile 16" in diameter, much less have enough room to move to chisel things?
@@Swindle1984 Skinny teenagers and young men. The same way tankers tended to be shorter.
A friend of mine got kicked from the Irish cavalry years ago. His legs didn't fit as a driver.
Chieftain had the same story, he went to the US.
had a 32 inch waist then
@@Swindle1984
Ryan, we started deploying velocimeters on our 155mm howitzer in the Army in the early to mid 1980s and their introduction drastically improved the weapons accuracy. I can imagine how having incorrectly repacked powder and the lack of velocimeters would really mess up accuracy.
While I was trained as an NCO to direct fire, never dealt directly with any form of artillery personally (as in firing pit) until quite late in my military career and was helping our 120mm mortar crew. They generously allowed me to drop a few rounds.
Suffice it to say, the drills impressed me, the incessant checking level and angles also imbued trust. Everyone repeating the firing order also impressed me, as it ensured no errors should make it to directing the gun.
Two men computing and if both agree, only then do firing orders go out, again, imbued trust.
Some months after that, got to help a 155 crew that was badly short staffed set up the gun for a PR display. Hell of a team! I figured out what had to go where and how from the mortar experience, so we seamlessly set up, they actually did level out the gun - on an airfield ramp for display, out of pure habit from properly drilling.
Came in handy in the wars, as before, I'd have wondered if the rounds would land on target or short. Trust is critical and saves lives.
Crews knew me on the radio, as I'd give correction by mils, when a FIST wasn't available.
I rotated with every team, even our sniper teams, just so I'd be fluent in their capabilities, even if I had to play Private for that time. Only weapon I declined familiarizing with was the Barrett. No thanks, my spine would never forgive me.
Everything else, yeah, I've fired it or crewed it.
My personal favorite weapon still remains my heat seeking moisture missile though. :P
@@spvillanocareful those wear down with age, it will have you dreaming of the glory days.
@@FranktheDachshund
😉😂
I was a Marine in Viet Nam,1967/1968, and was told that the New Jersey fired over my head. I remember vivid greenish flashes out at sea, then quiet rustling sounds overhead, then the earth trembling slightly. I was about seven or eight miles north of DaNang RVN. I loved it!
Don't forget Am. Willis "Ching" Lee; NEVER took Bu'Ord's ratings on powder ratings as to range. He test fired each gun, and very carefully noted fall of shots. Posted correction tables for ranging in the ships he commanded.
As a result, he won most accurate accolades in the Navy many times. Just what you might expect for a very decorated competition rifle and pistol shooter.
Given his background, that makes a lot of sense. I had never heard of the man, but I've read his history now. Thanks a lot!
Lee was the greatest battleship commander to ever live.
When lee fired a full broadside at the kirishima off savo island at about 8,000 yards it is believed he hit it with all nine barrels. And the beating went on and on. His name should be as heralded as George Washington.
Lee was amazing. In the months leading up to Guadalcanal Lee & the other members of his gun club (USS Washington’s Captain and & chief gunnery officer were, like Lee, experienced marksman and gun enthusiasts who were also exceptionally intelligent & enthusiastic and radar technology. Most 16” armed battleships in the USN during WWII could get off two shots per gun per minute if they needed to. By the time Washington faced off against Kirishima her gun crews had become so efficient that they’d chopped reload time down to 15-20 seconds per gun for aimed shots. I doubt they could have sustained that ROF for more than a few minutes but if you surprised an enemy at short/medium range that’s all you need. When the wreck of Kirishima was rediscovered it became apparent that Lee had severely undercounted the number of main battery hits. In his initial report Lee estimated that he’s hit Kirishima about 9 times with his main battery. Close inspection of the wreck indicates that he’d probably tagged her 20-21 times, including some likely through & throughs (shots that went in on side and came out the other without detonating.
Yamato and Musashi wouldn’t have been able to survive that many super-heavy 16” AP shell hits at that range. Their thicker armor would have just given the shells more time to ignite their fuses.
@@frederickking1660I’d have to go back & look up the records but I don’t think it was all 9. Five to seven was the estimate that I recall. Lee almost certainly did undercount the number of main battery hits, though. In his initial report Lee concluded that he’d hit Kirishima about 9 times at Savo. When the wreck was rediscovered and examined it became clear that he’d hit the IJN battleship more than twice as many times. A number of shells from the first salvo his Kirishima dove and hit Kirishima below the waterline. After Washington adjusted its firing angle there were some shots recorded as misses that likely tore through the armor on one side & out the other without detonating. The more recent forensic analysis suggests that Kirishima was probably hit about 21 times.
Ship I was on was already in Beirut and rendezvoused with NJ when she arrived. After all the weeks at sea to get to the Med, NJ was a rust bucket., but still impressive to look at.
would love to see photos of her getting a workout
My favorite field knife is commonly referred to by me as "trusty rusty".
It's ancient, it does its job if properly maintained.
And never a speck of rust on that knife was allowed.
Just as my brothers and sisters in the Navy wouldn't allow to accumulate on a warship.
But, ancient, yeah, still worthy, if they actually got the powder charge increments right. But then, Ordinance loved to fuck things up, turning the increments into new versions of the Mark 14 and eventually, claiming a turret and crew of a gun on Iowa.
Then, the Admiral that designed that disastrous increment change lead the investigation and turned it into a witch hunt, further disgracing the Navy.
Not an opinion, recorded history, both red book version and public release versions.
Was a kid at this time. That event set my course for the future, and when I joined the USN later, I thought it was pretty awesome to be serving at the same time as the Iowas...never thought that would be a possibility.
Ironically, my first duty station was on a ship built before BB62, which was USS Fulton, AS11.
There was a TV news broadcast that quoted Lebanese officials as complaining about the New Jersey's guns tearing up the town. That particular incident followed some chaotic firing by Soviet-made anti-aircraft guns. The reporter and his cameraman were guided to the damage "caused by the NJ's big-guns." The walls of the damaged small buildings were still standing. The officials pointed to some holes that were about 23mm and 57mm in diameter (perfectly round) and said those were caused by the New Jersey's 16" guns. I believe a Navy spokesman said the NJ had not even fired its 16" guns that day. It seemed unlikely that small poorly built buildings would still be standing after being hit with a 2000-lb shell or that such a shell would leave a nice neat 57mm hole in the wall. Other reporters said the AAA gunners had no fire disciple and shot their weapons in just about every direction, including into their own buildings.
Yes, 23 and 57mm are very common Soviet-made AA-gun calibers, both have been used by the Finnish defence forces. I was trained as a ZU-23-2 gunner during my conscription back in the early 90:s. The 57 was already becoming obsolete then but still in use by the reserves, I saw those being fired. At least here the standard practice for 23 was to línk one AP round for every 3 HE rounds, of which there were two kinds, with and without a tracer so there would be alternately one tracer and one "dark" round in the belt.
The clean round holes would probably be made by the AP rounds which are basically just lumps of steel with driving bands of copper and a tracer at the base while the HE-rounds are fitted with very sensitive contact fuses and would explode immediately upon any impact to cause maximal damage on thin skinned aircraft so they would probably cause larger, ragged holes with shrapnel downrange. The ZU-23-2 has a theoretical rate of fire of 1000 rpm/barrel (though the ammo cans only hold 50 rounds/barrel but they are very quick to change by a competent loader) so I think firing one at a building would be quite devastating. I once saw a short (2 or 3 rounds/barrel like we would fire at practice to conserve ammunition) burst accidentally (the gunner forgot to lock the elevation before firing and inadvertently yanked the crank while pushing the trigger pedal so he shot low) hit a retaining wall made of logs below a target and there were lots of airborne splinters after that.
*Sees an autocannon-caliber hole with minimal blast damage*
"Is this not sixteen-inch?"
Thanks for the information. Much appreciated.@@Murgoh
@@Murgoh the 23 and 57mm are good weapons, well, save when used by Russian conscripts.
In Finnish hands, well, the targets are Finished. ;)
Nothing but respect for those in the Winter War!
A co-worker of mine was on the barracks roof as over-watch before the bombing. He got ordered to change to a nearby building and was a couple hundred yards away when the bomber blew it up...and the blast tossed him quite a ways and he was never 'right' afterwards. Definitely messed him up which led to excessive drinking and dying in a car crash in '88. It's a small ugly world sometimes.
I'm sorry about your buddy. Thanks for remembering him and telling his story.
Rest in Peace
Two Marines from 1/8 Comm were sent up on the roof of the BLT building on the night of October 22nd, 1983 to call in a Medevac mission for a Marine that had been injured in a firefight that evening. When the mission secured, the Communications Officer, then 1st LT. Joseph Boccia went up on the roof and told them that they might as well stay up there as it was “Hot as Hell downstairs”. LT. Boccia went back down to his quarters and was killed in the blast the next morning. Joe and Bob rode the roof down as the building collapsed, climbed off the rubble and spent the next couple of days searching for survivors, bodies and pieces of bodies. They were then flown to Germany to help identify the dead. We lost Bob in ‘14 to a heart attack, Joe is alive and well. I talked to him yesterday.
@@ekimp252May Bob rest in peace.
very interesting history. My dad was on the NJ during WW2. I can't get enough of this content.
A high school friend was blown up in the barracks. He had a giant 80's afro. We called him Fuzzy. Marine recruit barber must've enjoyed it. RIP Fuzz.
I was sent from there to invade Grenada just before bombing
I am so sorry man.
I had a friend who ended up just missing that trip. He went into Intel instead.
I have never forgotten the men who died there. In my opinion the State Department put ROE on the Marines that got them killed.
I joined after that my life was never the same.
Hi Ryan, I've watched and enjoyed many of your Battleship New Jersey videos. I have a good friend who served on the New Jersey during the Beirut deployment. He served in fire control for the 16" guns. I sent him a link to this video and asked for his comments. Here is his reply.
"Hi Roger,
I appreciate your interest in the ship. My years on board were amazing. I don’t know who this guy is that is narrating, but he misses on a few crucial points. First, the crew was trained well before deployment and even prior to commissioning. Once out of dry dock we began sea trials that lasted months. Sea trials were a strenuous test of all systems from engineering to weapons. We trained extensively with the main battery guns at San Clemente island. We were even protested on our return to port for firing on the goats that inhabited the island. There were old salts brought back to assist in training on the systems. This included radar, fire control computers and systems. After commissioning and prior to deployment the ship earned the “Battle E” ribbon. E for Excellence. The problem with the powder bags was identified and corrected during those sea trials. Second, there were velocimeters installed in each turret and in both plotting rooms during the refit. That was part of my personal training in the plotting room even while still being in dry dock.
It would have been completely irresponsible to send such a vessel on deployment under the conditions that this gentleman claims. As far as the firing accuracy we laid down in Syria, again I disagree with him. The day after our firing mission the Marine spotters and Naval air support came on board and shared reconnaissance photos with us in the plotting room. The CO and XO were with us and the report was glowing and showed precise and deadly accuracy. It was a long cruise but we did get breaks from the gun line for some of the greatest port calls in the world.
Thanks again for your interest.
Kenny"
You answered one of the questions that popped into my head lately. How many crew members served on NJ during multiple commissioning periods.
Lighter replica powder bags would make cool stools to sit on
Let me think... where was I back on September 26, 1983?? Oh, yeah... I was a Marine on the line in Beirut. We had arrived in May and during June and July, strays and pot shots were the rule of thumb. But during August things started heating up and at the end of August the shit hit the fan. After a month being involved in heavy fighting and taking casualties, the New Jersey showed up. She was an awesome sight cruising up and down the coast. We waited and waited to see those big guns cut loose... the bombing happened on October 23rd and still her guns remained silent. During the 3rd week of November we were relieved in place by a fresh unit (sort of... they were the Marines who had landed on Grenada) and we boarded ships and sailed away from Beirut. Shortly after arriving back at Camp Lejeune we heard about the New Jersey opening up. It was hard to cheer though after what we had been through and then not even getting the chance to see her serving up some payback. I'll never forget the sight of her though.
Really appreciate it if the baseball caps were available again. Got my original at Long Beach in the 80s
Another issue with the WWII powder supplies was improper storage between deployments. This was a BIG issue in the Iowa incident, as powder bags were removed from the ship and stored in unventilated barges in hot weather affecting the powder.
@JLange642 Thanks, you saved me from looking it up!
you are soooooo spot on imagine spending all this taxpayer cash & not manufacturing new powder !!!!
Well, with the Iowa, there was also an augmentation that the lead investigating Admiral had designed that came into play.
@@THOMAS81Z well, I've used TNT from the 1950's in the Army. Why replace that which is stable and considered fit for use?
The issue with storage is a valid concern, but incorrectly loading the bags, bigger concern, as the propellant won't be consumed inside of the barrel behind the round, but be ejected still igniting and basically, making only a light show, decreasing range and performance.
The Navy had tons of storage issues, some coming into play and causing disastrous a aircraft carrier fire.
RDX and heat don't get along, the composition in the carrier fire actually had begun breaking down and literally leaking out of the bombs when the incident triggered a fire that enveloped the bombs (massively simplified here).
@@spvillano I was in to , so your were a gun bunny, what unit ? I was A co 124 sig 4th ID😊
I was Weapons Officer in USS IOWA 1983-1986, and Mr Harold Jones, the Naval Weapons Center expert on 16" gunnery frequently visited Iowa as we became the big gun expert ship. He briefed me in New Jersey's performance at San Clemente gunnery range using the powder charges she had at commissioning which was unmixed 16"/50 with the 1800-pound HE round. He told me the variation in initial velocity seen there was up to 120 feet per second, which means there had to have been velocimeters aboard BEFORE Lebanon. I was visiting the ship off Panama when the order to go to Lebanon was received and transited aboard the ship as she passed through the canal to the Atlantic side where I debarked to return to IOWA still in the yard at Pascagoula. As a result of the San Clemente experience, a program was initiated to take three grand lots of 16"/45 powder from WWII and mis them together in order to achieve a consistent initial velocity WITH THE LIGHTER HE PROJECTILES. We could NOT fire this powder, designated I think D346 or D846, with the heavy weight projectiles because it burned so much faster than 16"/50 powder. After I commented to the New York Times reporter aboard that this was the reason NJ shot so badly, the Secretary of the Navy sent us a message asking if we could prove it. We sent back a message saying sure, if you can give us some dud HE projectiles (no explosive 16" projectiles were allowed at Vieques Island target range) all within 20 pounds of each other. At this time the Navy did not have any practice projectiles for the HE round - we only had the 2700-pound rounds in dud form. We ended up meeting a landing craft off Roosevelt Roads loaded with 50 of these specially prepared projectiles sent in a C-5A in the personal custody of the Commanding Officer NAD Crane and proceeded to fire the longest range shore bombardment in battleship history making the celebrated pattern which could partial fill the center of and overlay of the Pentagon. I have a copy and am happy to provide it to you. And that, my friend, is why NJ fired inaccurately. If you were to grab a bag of remixed powder, you would know that the grains were jumbled in there because you could feel the lumpiness of the grains in the relatively untight bag.
Great post. I was watching a vid recently about the Misty FACs wherin the narrator mentioned poor accuracy from offshore ships firing on selected FAC-selected onshore targets. No idea if that was true but, if it was true, I wonder if they were experiencing similar powder problems. Sounded as if WWII-level accuracy was not even being achieved, not sure.
"Between the wars" my dad served as a reservist in the coastal defense artillery. The hard some good sized guns, of course, as they were intended to fight off any enemy warship. My dad said that at least on one occasion they opened the power bags and manually mixed up the "powder" and then put it back in the bags This ensured that the bags were uniform and a few test shots would "Calibrate" things.
Couldn't do that with the 16 inch monster bags. As he said, they were designed to be stacked for consistent burn while the shell was still inside of the barrel.
Just dumping shit back in randomly would leave propellant leaving the barrel either just beginning to burn, partially burned or unignited and wasted, losing pressure to propel the round properly and consistently.
Small guns, yeah, granular powder would work that way, with decreasing performance based upon storage conditions and for shore batteries, burned off and replaced.
Two Comments, Ryan.
I knew a USNR Cook that was called up to serve on the USS New Jersey for Beirut. He told about a young Marine that was always complaining about the chow. One day this Marine's Gunny Sargeant came to my friend and asked if their was a room nearby he could use. One day as the young Marine stood in the chow line, the Gunny's arm came out of the room and grabbed the young Marine and quickly pulled him inside and the door closed. Much banging, yelling and other sounds could be heard. Then the door opened and the young Marine was shoved back into the chow line and the door closed again. The young Marine never again complained about the chow! When we were working together I would kid him about having to start making an egg souffle for the Captain just as they were to be starting a main gun firing mission! Sadly, I have learned he passed away last year. RIP my conductor and good friend. It was never boring working with you.
The other story is from my MI Army National Guard First Sargeant. He was a Marine then serving in northern South Vietnam. He heard many rounds from the USS New jersey screaming overhead on their way to target. That made quite an impression on him.
I was a cook in the Army it is not a good idea to mess around with the cooks
There was an entire program at crane to remix powder and bag in those blue polyurethane cases. I belive the mixing between lots was stopped because the velocity was inconsistent.
Polyurethane is highly static prone, so it must've been coated.
But, you can't mix powder in a bag full of pellets, which the 16 inchers were made up as. At a certain dimensional size, one has to resort to pellets, as powder would simply rupture the chamber. It's pretty much an inverse of a rocket at that point, fuel behind the round like a rocket, but not going with and still propelling the rocket after leaving the barrel.
And I've designed rockets and some rounds for personal usage. Combustion rate, pressure curves, yeah, it's complicated.
This for an answer to this person's question. @thomasshoe92. On pre commissioning A GMG2 attached to turret 2, after cleaning barrels for first time we found in center gun a large flame wash approximately 1-foot up rifling from chamber. This flame wash was 1/2 inch deep approximately 2 inches wide by 14 inches long. Varius of us was sent to schools for extra training, I was the only one sent to school for bore scoping of the barrels from the 16-inch turrets. on returning to the ship, we commenced checking out all 9-gun barrels to see in what condition they were in and the amount of wear each had. I found no damage to any other barrel but center gun turret 2. the bore scope is like a microscope and can magnify quite a bit. close looking at the flame wash i notice what appeared to be a fine crack on following the line I found it to go completely around the barrel. on finding this I reported to my superiors, they did not want to believe me as this would condemn this barrel from firing. About three weeks later a representative from Dahlgren came to the ship, he then went into the chamber to see the damage but was claustrophobic (came out right away). after calming him down, I went in feet first then he came after. then we inspected the damage. He then concurred with my findings and stated the barrel was condemned. after returning from Lebanon cruise, during which center gun was not fired. The ship returned to the shipyard and while there we replaced the center gun barrel. At that time I was leading FirstClass GMG1 for the division turret2. To replace the barrel a jig was built to carry the 100ton barrel and slide the bad barrel out. then the jig was taken to the pier where the old barrel was exchanged for the new barrel, then placed on the ship and aligned precisely. Then the new barrel was slid back into the turret and mated to the breech. I have no photos of this and have not found any. will answer any more questions.
Reply
Thanks for your response, @turretman1st! Your TH-cam handle suits you, think. 👍
@@GrahamCStrouse thank you
All of the U.S. fast battleships experienced significant shell dispersion over their careers. It was approximately 1.9% of range for a nine- gun salvo and was something which no fire control system could compensate for. This is one reason why none of the Iowa class battleships ever scored a 'confirmed' main battery hit on any vessel of destroyer size or larger during the Second World War- and is a likely reason why Iowa failed to sink Nevada. I've seen a number of film clips of some of the Iowas in the 80s firing one gun at a time, which would eliminate dispersion.
Still and all, the Iowas were among the finest capital ships ever constructed- and they were real beauties.
What about USS Washington and IJN Kirishima? 5" and 8" guns didn't destroy that BB.
@@johngaither9263 Washington was not an Iowa class battleship, and the night action in which she fatally damaged Kirishima began at short range- and dropped to point blank range. Shell dispersion is a factor which becomes significant at medium ranges and increases as the range increases.
My son was an OS2 on the New Jersey when they went to Lebanon in 1983.
As a Guardsman,👍 thanks.
Many years ago a friend was telling me about his experience in Korea as a Marine CPL forward observer. His company was almost wiped out. He and 4 others were the only survivors. He was able to get a radio working and called for help. A battleship off of the coast was available. There was about 600 chinese in the valley below. Howie said that in just a few salvos the chinese were obliterated. He did say that the concussion that he felt was awful from more than 1/2 mile away.
And at Iwo Jima, the Japanese survived a protracted and repeated artillery bombardment.
The difference was, the Japanese general ordered construction of cave and tunnel based positions to shelter from artillery and gave orders against suicidal charges. Troops in the open, not much chance of survival, under proper shelter and cover, excellent chance.
Still, I'd rather not be in the neighborhood when any such charge, be it gun or bomb delivered arrives. Experience a half ton of explosive detonating some time, you'll heartfully agree! We're talking so loud that you pretty much can't hear it, but you feel it throughout your body and especially in your chest.
I guessed correctly-"inconsistent" powder. Cool presentation.
Jersey was with Ike off Lebanon, I was on Ike then, weapons techs come over and tell us every time she bombards Lebanon stuff breaks. Lots of work to do then. We flew F14s to take before and after snaps. Some were snaps were quite interesting
I remember people talking about how the New Jersey couldn't seem to hit its targets and how the government of Lebanon had complained and told the Navy to go away. Big hoopla! I never heard the real reason. Than you.
Ya' know you could probably sell replica 3" powder grains in your store. They could be cheap plastic parts.
You could 3D print some prototypes. Then find a plastic molder. Or, maybe the OEM still has the molds that you could borrow. (That is a common practice among plastic molders. The customer retains ownership of the molds while the molder stores and operates them.) I'll bet some of your listeners have 3D printers and would print some out for you. They would just need the dimensions and would not need to be mil-spec accurate. It would be good to get the color correct. Depending on demand you could even set up a distributed manufacturing scheme. Although the cost would be high for 3D printing all of them. (hmmm... Adam Savage?) Just a thought, love your work.
The powder was extruded with hollow cores through them IIRC and not cast. For the numbers they would likely sell...the most economical way to reproduce them would be 3D printing which could reproduce them very nicely.
You could make them at home with playdoh.
A pillow in the shape and look of a powder bag would be a fun article.
@@recoilrob324 I'd love to have a couple of live pellets to experiment with, with an eye for rocketry.
With obviously, taming those wild beasts down a tad.
Get a high power engine working off of those, make new history, using old technology and mixing new and old tech is one thing I'm great at.
That suggested, I'm in no hurry to do that. It'd just be so utterly cool to do it. Currently though, I've no place to safely secure such pellets, as I live in an apartment building now.
Back when I had a house and garage, it'd be fine, as storage in a modest underground storage chamber would've been trivial to build.
Great video. It gave alot of insight as to how the big guns worked on the ship.
Because rhe bureau of ordenance remixed the propellant
Winner winner chicken dinner. Those knuckleheads led by CAPT Miceli at Crane inexplicably thought that it was a good idea to take propellant from many lots of production and mix them. This flies in the face of every tenet of accurate shooting, no matter what size bullet you're shooting. The Gunnery divisions of Iowa class battleships (and likely any Navy ship with large caliber Naval artillery) kept meticulous shot-by-shot records of every bullet sent downrange so that they could discern patterns of ballistic behavior of production lots of both projectiles and propellant. (There is a specific name for this book which I can't recall at the moment by maybe Ryan will tell us.) So all that hard-learned specific knowledge went right out the window with the remix.
The navy added the DR810 radar (calculated the muzzle velocity) to each turret to try to get back some of that knowledge.
No Iowa-class ship has ever demonstrated that their main-guns can be accurate at any significant range. In 1948, the Navy used the Nevada as a dummy target-ship in a live-fire exercise designed to demonstrate the capabilities of the various big-gun calibers of the post-WWII Navy. The Iowa was given the order to fire for effect on the Nevada during the early afternoon of July 30th at a range of about 16 NM. There was a crew of camera-men and spotters on-board a light-cruiser a couple miles away from the Nevada that were supposed to be observing and recording the effects of the shelling. After two hours of continuous salvos, the Iowa radioed the vice-admiral overseeing the exercise and asked for permission to pause the exercise for an hour to change the watch and troubleshoot some electrical issues. After this was granted, the Iowa radioed the spotting crew on the cruiser and asked them: "how's the enemy looking?" To which came the response: "we can report no observed damage or effect. But, if she was crewed, you put one hell of a scare into them."
Thank You for your research on this. We had been told issue was a problem with WGS 84 this answers a longing question.
There were lost of reasons. Inconsistent powder charges, insufficient practice, inferior optics in the rangefinders, inferior radar and slow aiming data affecting reaiming changes in the turret.
One correction to Mr. Graham's recollection. He refers to Chief Gorchinski as Master Chief. He was a Chief Petty Officer (E-7) not a Master Chief. ETC Michael Gorchinski.
I love it! I turned 19 that day! Love the channel Ryan!
The answer, at 9:15: 1940’s legacy gun powder, still good (!) remixed improperly.
Thanks to those who served and comments below. Nice work with adding in small interview clips. Minor request - add a small on screen of the persons name and speciality. With that for others - there is usually an interview video with the person here on NJ TH-cam page. - batch of those of varied ages and quantities.
you do a great job making the history come to life by taking us to the spot the guy stood and how it was done you see a ship send a salvo but i never knew how many men where in the turret to make it happen like Hollywood
An interesting discussion would be if they had to start making powder for the ship's guns again, what would they do differently here in 2023? Is there a different method? maybe an upgrade to the composition?
Who knows. They wouldn't need to discard the old ammo. It would be recycled and mixed with more solvents and re-cast the stuff.
It would probably be pretty much the same, if they could make the bags lighter they might but they would probably keep the bags the same size to work with all the machinery. If they were really on it they would make an autoloader
@@jacksonledford6874 An autoloader would be a smart upgrade, fewer hands need to touch the stuff and it would speed up the rate of fire.
Interesting. I recall know Air Force Civilians in the Early 1990s complaining the new bombs being made to replenish stock used in Desert Storm were using old / existing composition when there was newer better chemical composition they felt should be used.
@@wfoj2 they might use a different composition for weight or less wear on the liners but the pressure of the explosion and the size of the bags would have to stay the same for the 16in guns. Maybe a sabot round could be made or guided mutitions, cluster bombs, incindiary, some kind of drone launcher, a rocket assisted round, nuclear rounds, chemical/bio rounds, airburst rounds, depleted uranium sabot. But the size of the round and the explosion pushing it out has to be the same or else they would need to re make the gun.
The powder was stored in barges... They had strip chart temperature recorders. And some of the powder was stored at high temperature beyond the approved, safe temperatures... That's how the IOWA accident happened... So the guns were not rebarreled when she was re-activated??? Wow. When 16 in gun barrels are rifled, they take a twist. There was a machine to straighten them at Naval Ordnance Station Louisville in the 1980s still. I was told, there was one old guy left that new how to do it...
I saw a battleship ported next to an aircraft carrier, I was surprised how small the battleship was. San Diego in 1986 or so.
Perfection!
Thanks, Ryan.
A flick of a finger...!
Nice shot of a model 35 teletype.
It's remarkable that I was alive as a Gen X kid when this ship was exiting active service in the 90s. What a career!
On the statement that we were inexperienced on the workings of the guns and the ship! Maybe you need to do an episode on all the embarrassing things that happened.
The moving medical box looks like it's the first thing that will hurt you!
Not to mention the roll of fire hose to trip over
They were having a lot of problems with not only the powder bags but the flash paper between the powder bag which is what caused the explosion on the the one Battleship, which they attempted to charge one of the Dead Sailors with. Which was an absolute travesty of Justice. Not only was that not the only time it ever happened, as it was reported. It is understood that it did happen a number of times during WWII. The other problem you have is a 22 to 2500 lb shell does not have to be particularly accurate.
8:59 Wouldn't the "center" barrel of the battery technically depend on which side of the ship the target position(s) are on because of the turrets not being evenly spaced? In the event of subsequent reactivations, looking at it this way would share the burden of firing spotting rounds between two barrels? It'd be interesting to see which breaks first.
+/- 2:43 Are the windows shown above the podium the ones you recently discovered ? I looks as is a couple have been removed [likely for the secret service to better observe.
No, those are different windows, those windows can roll down!
@@BattleshipNewJersey Thanks for the reply. I actually did consider that for a moment, but figured it was better to mention it than not. Sorry for the bother.
Here's some comments from Tony D (owner of NavWeaps website) during a propellent discussion on one of the NavWeaps message boards.
Following USS New Jersey's poor gunnery performance off Lebanon in 1984, NSWC at Dahlgren, VA, conducted a gunnery improvement program. One of the outcomes of this program was that D-846 was remixed in lots of about 100,000 lbs. in order to distribute the varying propellant grains evenly. It was then rebagged to a tolerance of 1/10 of a pound per bag (roughly +/- 2 grains). These lots were test fired in at least two guns for charge assessments and the resulting round-to-round variation was very low. D-839 was found to still be within the original +/- 10fps variation acceptance standards when used with the 2,700 lbs. projectile and was not rebagged. It should be noted that most firing missions were expected to be with HC rounds, not APC rounds and this was the case during all four wars (plus Lebanon) in which the Iowa class participated.
Great inisghts and even better are the comments from guys close to the action!
We really should not have been flinging a Chevrolet at enemy combatants in the 1980s. I can understand that at times we do need to use more expensive armaments, but an Isuzu or even a Yugo would have likely been sufficient in that case. I presume it might have even had more range, and in particular the Yugo may have been more terrifying. Also, the way that a Chevrolet was built back then, after a 23 mile parabolic flight the enemy might be able to buff out the scratches, replace a few pieces, and put it back on the road. The Isuzu or Yugo would have been more similar to a cluster bomb.
I thought that re-packed powder was the issue that caused the explosion in Iowa's turret as well.
There's a TH-cam video about the Iowa coverup. They had old power that would self ignite under pressure or shock.. Video has great explanation of its testing.
Yes. Also the officers were changing the total charge - in an effort to increase range as an "experiment" over their at sea deployment. The leading "Navy theory" is problems of a powder charge bag being opened by tears (bags weakened by the "remixing"), or torn by something like "over - ramming". In reality the Navy still is trying to blame the gun crew for something, anything...
(but never really the officers :"')
Even a velocymeter wouldn't have helped much with those messed up bags that create a different velocity with every shot.
But it would have helped to locate the issue pretty fast when V0 is different at every barrel with every shot.
Sooo..."new guy" got involved and tried to "help fix" the powder bags, which had already worked PERFECTLY since manufactured for 40 years. Figures.
They had to test that they were still good. It wasn't a matter of fixing them it was that the test involved ripping open X number of bags and they didn't put them back the same way.
Admiral Lee worked hard to get the powder standardized to deliver the same velocity every shot.
He was a world glass marksman with pistol, rifle and naval guns
You always make sense Ryan, cheers.
If some shots were going farther than others, that could be caused by faulty powder burning with too much pressure. That could also have caused the barrel liner to crack.
My thoughts precisely. There's a video around on the design and construction of the barrels. The design considerations are actually pretty cool!
Very interesting! What do the velocity meters look like and are they still on the ship?
DR-810 doppler radar
I have pix of the console at the Turret Officer's station in the turret, and the teletype-style readout in forward main plot. The antennae are still mounted to each of the three turrets, a rounded capsule looking projection mounted at the center of the turret very close to the faceplate. TH-cam does not make it easy to post your own pix.
dumb question, how often do you think someone nailed their knee on that first aid kit while the turret was spinning, while I don't think it's something you would do more then once, I know it would totally happen to me.
I was on the Independence offshore when the New Jersey was given to OK to fire on Lebanon. The told us she was going to "sling Volkswagens" into Lebanon. As a side note....the reason this and the air strike on December 5th occurred was because of the system I worked on. Our squadron, VF-32, flew recon mission over Beirut, F14 Tomcats using the "TARPS" Pod. They were fired upon multiple times and the warning went out that if they continued, the New Jersey would retaliate. I believe they tried to shoot down a TARPS plane from VF-31 on the Kennedy. The next day the New Jersey cleared its throat. As a side note....my dad was on the USS Pasadena (CL-65) during WW2 and operated along side the New Jersey for almost his entire time in the pacific. He thought it was kind of cool that his son's ship operated with the New Jersey too.
So Wise , Thank You .
I knew a former GM1 who served on the NJ during Vietnam that got called back before they finished the retrofit. Made him either a Sr. Chief, or Chief WO (forget which)if he agreed to so many years.
I was over there as in Beirut when the headquarters was destroyed, I have a list of all people that were killed there. The ship I was on was Uss Austin lpd4. I remember a map of Bb62 Uss New Jerseys journey being written as her progress was made, oh the photos I have, the vessels people etc.
Gunnery, from a scientific standpoint, is fairly simple. But to be accurate, everything has to be as consistent as possible. Does make me wonder what the chamber pressures are like with the 16" guns aboard Nee Jersey, what the allowable tolerances are, etc. Nearly all modern tanks have a thermal shroud around the barrels, to keep the sun from heating the barrels unevenly (higher temps on top, lower underneath, resulting in gun tube droop--enough to impact accuracy over tank engagement ranges, of up to 4000m or so). But I've never seen any such thing on a naval gun . . .
I'm wondering does the ship still have it's gunnery computer installed? And if such was mechanical analogue in function? I've seen some old us naval training videos covering the basics of how such worked. Dials to set inputs, , driving gears, including differentals, cams. And mechanical integrators etc.
During the Korean War, my future Father In Law was a electronics maintenance Warrant Officer aboard the New Jersey. His roommate was the officer in charge of making the firing calculations for the big guns. They were very accurate putting shells where needed.... The roommate ended up being my FIL's best friend and later the god parent of my future wife...
She had the same effect as HMS Hood did during the interwar period when she turned up somewhere
Didn't they already have a scale or aerate if Deterioration " on thise bags and determined how much of a velocity change differentiation when compared the the 16/45 guns on the South Dakota & North Carolina class ships to determine how many and which combination of bags to use to reach the desired velocity and range???
I wonder how often they lost those tampions over board pushing them off like that
Thanks for this article, I had always wondered why the Lebanese claimed the Americans couldn’t shoot straight or hit what they aimed at. I lived and worked in Lebanon from ’94 through ’97, my assignment started as head of the survey team for rehabilitation of the PSTN ( telephone network ) and continued as design and implementation engineer. It was almost a joke with the Lebanese that the safest place to be when the Americans were shooting was where their target was located.
If they were to recommission the boat, which they won’t, would anyone know how even run the boilers? Firing a boiler is an talent in itself.
Probably because the propellant charges, the stored shells were very old. Also the fire control system probably needed recalibration. Battleships were extremely useful in shore bombardment in WW2, Korea, and VietNam, offering much more destructive power (large land artillery is 155mm(approx 6 inches) 175mm (approx 7 inches) 208mm (8 inch howitzer)), the 16 inch high explosive rounds put those in the shade.
Good detective work👍🏽
The Navy certainly sorted things out by the time Desert Storm rolled around! Once they’d figured out how to tie in a laser rangefinder to the old analog firing computer & worked out how to use drones as spotters (a harbinger of things to come!) the Missouri & Wisconsin those 16” guns became deadly accurate.
A lot of the munitions came from NWSY, thanks for sharing.
Chevrolet ? I saw a Volkswagen Beetle on a scale with a 16" shell I think that was at Nauticus in Norfolk. Which Chevrolet model most closely matches a VW Beetle? A Vega is 2270 lbs.
I thought it was because the loaders wrote the wrong addresses on them. "To get it to the door, remember Zip + 4!"
I noted a typo on Ryan's shirt, compared to the original. Ryan's "Chevrolet" is not capitalized, whereas the original is capitalized. The ones in the store also appear to be not capitalized.
What happened to the spent shells that missed their target and landed in the water? Are they still live or did they explode under water at a certain depth?
I remember that. I was an HR on the 6th Fleet flagship USS Puget Sound.
Hmm, several countries went in to Lebanon on a peacekeeping mission, then the US decided to choose sides and started shelling into one of the most heavily populated cities in the Middle East, from this ancient battleship. No surprise what happened next…
I had nearly forgotten that lunacy.
I flew F14's off of USS Independence off Beirut when New Jersey was there. I capped over head New Jersey and saw her fire those huge guns into the Beirut country side...It was an awesome sight to behold....
so the crewmen were going ashore, and sleeping on land, which they were shelling from the ship?? have i got that right?
Not even close.
It's official, Chevrolet is a unit of measure.
I always heard it was VW bug for BBs guns
Does your shop ship those shirts overseas?
OT: How much water can the 16" shells pass before becoming ineffective?
What happened to the rest of the powder?
My dad was the radar officer on the New Jersey at the end of WWII. By the way I tried to order a polo shirt but cannot specify size before checking out. How else could I place an order?
At what speed (fps) did these 16” projectiles travel? Muzzle? At range? Thank you!
The shells had some sort of rocket extended range gizmos?