Battleship Texas, Coal and Torpedoes
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- A deep dive into the design and construction choices, difficulties, and improvements that were part of Battleship Texas' conversion from coal to oil fired boilers.
- วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Former navy engineer here. Sleeping one deck above the constant quiet hum of running machinery is pure bliss, and a feeling I still greatly miss today. This video made me think of that feeling and it brought back some fond memories. What an absolute beauty Texas must've been in her heyday.
Thanks for the comment! When veteran sailors come on board many comment about the slight odor of fuel oil that wakes up memories.
All you old timers say you liked the navy. Everyone I talk to who's enlisted now, says they hate it. Probably the woke thing.
What a great video. A lot of awesome info on how they did the massive overhaul and design upgrade.
Fantastic!, I never would have guessed the inner workings of these ships😁👍👍
Wow, what an amazing transformation!
Yeah, and I watched the whole video. Wow.
I am amazed at the clean condition of many of the tanks. It was awesome getting a peek inside the tanks and voids most people will never get to see! Your explanation on how and why the torpedo blisters were developed was outstanding, and your graphics were excellent! I've watched this video more than once with my finger on the pause button!
Excellent! Thanks for putting this together, Tom!
Excellent video, I am going to see the Battleship Texas in dry dock this week.
Hope you enjoy it!
Outstanding video.
Engineer: "So how much oil do you want?"
Texas: "YES"
Great video 👍🏻
It's amazing how they figure this out
The complexity of the fuel system is bewildering, so the idea of using six primary battle tanks when the ship is in action seems like a great simplifying strategy. It would be good to know who devised such a system.
There was a high level of planning involved by the Navy's design bureau for the battle tank system since there was a separate set of feed lines and valves going to those tanks in addition to the standard feed lines. So, there were a lot of folks involved in the concept and execution.
Wonderful Video!
Outstanding
You failed to mention another equally important tank system is the freshwater production, storage, and distribution system without neither the ship nor the crew would be able to continue the battle long. The boilers can not operate correctly or at all without freshwater, and in an emergency, they can operate on saltwater but only for a very limited time then must be reconditioned. The same goes for the crew but they can never drink salt water.
I failed to mention fresh water because the subject of the video was the fuel system and its contribution to torpedo protection, in which fresh water played no role.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 don't take it personally, I was the Water King on a midway class career in the 1960s
@@davidschwartz5127 Only if you don't take it personally that water didn't get a mention. :) That had to be a hell of a job on a carrier! The water system was pretty simple on Texas. As you can imagine, potable water had its own tank and piping that took water directly from the evaporators. I personally wouldn't want to drink, shower or cook with water meant for the boilers considering its alkalinity. To feed the boilers, pumps on the feed lines starting at the engine room hot wells sent feed water back to the boiler rooms at 400psi. Those lines can be seen, but not easily identified in the steam passages that I posted in a video. One reason is that they are insulated just like the steam lines. The boilers didn't have economizers on them, so the water was heated in the engine rooms before going back to the boilers. There were also reserve feed water tanks located directly underneath the boiler rooms that provided makeup water. The feed water pumps in the engine rooms could draw off of those as needed. In the event of damage to feed lines or equipment, auxiliary water pumps and valve manifolds that sit between the pairs of boilers in each room could draw directly off the reserve tanks that sit beneath them. Things got dicey if they were needed since the boilers would be running on an open system and they would quit steaming when the water ran out. If they started out with full tanks, they could last for 2 hours with all 6 boilers producing full steam. It would last much longer if they could cut back to 2 boilers producing partial steam that would allow 10 knots of speed.
You may have seen the video I posted on the main evaporator system. I'd love to also do a quick video on the Griscom-Russell, two effect, soloshell emergency evaporator that could produce 12,000 gal./day. Unfortunately, I took photos, but didn't shoot a video in its compartment. I would be surprised if you didn't have one or more of the soloshells on board when you served. They were very compact, widely used and were the primary means of producing fresh water on smaller ships like destroyers.
Just saw this. Didn't know Texas was coal fired to begin with.
Yes, she and her sister ship, New York, were the last U.S. coal fired battleships.
The US Navy purchased 100 percent of the coal from mines at Bluefield, WV, due to its low smoke output.
While I am not aware of specific coal fields, there is no question that the preferred coal was a high quality, hand picked anthracite. It was high on energy content and low on sulfur and other impurities. As an interesting side note, if they had to take on coal in a foreign port and if time permitted, they would first bring about a ton of it on board and burn it to see how it performed before committing to hundreds of tons of it.
Did the Oil King take oil from the tanks in a pattern that improved torpedo protection? For instance, did he create a zone of alternating full and empty tanks to help absorb the blast like protection schemes on later ships?
Nor that I am aware of. When in combat, they only used 6 battle tanks located immediately adjacent to the boiler rooms, as described close to the end of this video. The rest of the fuel system was shut down. As those emptied, fuel could be transferred to them from other less important tanks. That left two rows of tanks outboard of the battle tanks that provided reasonable protection. There is a damage control plate that shows a number of tanks that were to be filled with sea water when emptied to maintain stability, draft and protection. However, the problem with that is the ship did not have flooding or drain lines to the tanks that would allow them to do that. There was one instance where that presented a problem when they were escorting a convoy. It was necessary for them to provide fuel to destroyers that accompanied them. That resulted in some tanks being empty that should have been flooded. As a compromise, they flooded the torpedo blister compartments that laid outboard of the empty tanks. That helped maintain draft and stability, but torpedo protection was compromised. Considering the circumstances, they had no other choice.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Thank you Tom!
The Fuel King had an interesting job.
How they built these ships without computers baffles me
This may be too late for an answer but since the ship was opened up why didn't they switch out the engines for steam turbines which would have been a huge improvement.
It's only too late if I quit looking at comments! I'm sure that the decision to keep the old engines came down to cost. There are proposal drawings still in existence showing that both turbines and turbo-electric were considered. A change would have given several improvements, including increased fuel efficiency, maybe extended operation at maximum speeds and perhaps maintenance. However, these were apparently not enough to justify the high cost and time out of service required to make the extensive changes to engines, hull structure, prop shafting, etc. Keep in mind that while Texas was a valuable asset, her overall design was somewhat obsolete and she wasn't considered a first line battleship. Also, when the modernization took place in 1925-26, available turbine designs could only give a 5,000-8,000hp increase, which isn't enough to give much speed increase. It takes big increases in power to improve that. We're talking about doubling or tripling power for small increases. It then becomes an issue of whether or not the ship's hull structure can take the increased power without damage.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Thanks!
Thank God for fuel oil, and crude oil
Anyone know what the manning of stokers changed? How many did the number of sailors reduce by?
I cannot locate the 1915 manning table that I have that would give best information. There's a lot more affected than just the number of stokers eliminated when reducing from 14 coal fired boilers to 6 oil fired. Off the top of my head, you first eliminate stokers and coal passers, and the overall crew needed to run 14 boilers. Then add back in the crews for 6 oil fired, plus the oil king's crew and you get a net reduction of about 200 crew for all of engineering. While that would also include engine room and other auxiliaries, those items shouldn't see any significant change since they were largely unmodified.
Excellent Video about the ship's coal and oil systems. But you didn't cover the torpedoes as promised. I hope you will correct this omission in a future video. I love that ship.
16 months is an astounding timeline for that much engineering, iron work, and plumbing. Much respect to hardworking individuals that made that happen.
In the meantime, the Yamato is being planned.
To think of all the other major changes they also did at the same time it's amazing. They basically gutted the ship and rebuilt it from the inside out.
@@oldmech619 and the Texas is still floating and the Yamato is a deep sea reef.
That company that's doing the work is legit. I've worked with a few of their people years ago.
That was back before they unionized.
This is outstanding!
Very well explained with great graphics.
I guess this makes me a battleship geek, eh?
I called myself a nerd but geek covers us just as well.
Definitely!
I had a passing understanding of the retrofit to oil but i hadn't really thought about the immensity and complexity of the project before. Great video. The drawings and illustrations were very helpful too.
A plumbers worst nightmare lol. Fascinating stuff though! Being a steel worker I couldn't imagine the complexity of building this ship. Engineering is simply mind boggling especially for a hundred years ago. I hope some day this ship is fully restored.
Amazing the piping and layout. I sailed as a engineer in the merchant marine. I was always a little stressed taking on bunkers and we only had four fuel tanks on most of the steam tankers I served on!
Great video... That fuel system is significantly more complex then Id imagined. But having the designated 'battle tanks' is a quite clever way to manage the system... The amount of thought, engineering, and work that went into ships of that era is simply amazing...!!!
You did a wonderful job of describing a complex system. Thank you.
This is a very well produced piece.
The graphics and narrative were mutually informative.
It is a shame that all this marvelous engineering is put in use for war. But also, thank God it is that well done. Kept us in the fight during our darkest hour. Thank you Sir for putting together such a comprehensive presentation. Take care and God Bless from Florida. New subscriber here.
When a nation declares war on you, you are either at war, or you surrender. You don't have any other choices. If you have not maintained your military, surrender may be the only option. Unfortunately, the quest for peace is frequently interpreted as weakness by your enemy, and may result in a war where a stronger posture may well deter the enemy from testing you. This dichotomy has been seen many times in history. We have seen this several times recently with alternating strong and weak presidents, with resulting international events. 2008-2016 was a mess. 2017-2020 was a stable time, the guy was obnoxious, but other nations knew not to mess with him. We now have an extremely weak one, hang on!
Engineering only advanced at this pace because of war. Without those wars these would be much simpler times and far less advanced.
Great video. The voiceover is really quiet, so when the ads come on my ears are bleeding because they are much louder. Can you increase the gain on the voiceover?
Extremely well done presentation, but I have my sound cranked up all the way and can barely hear it. Love the details and diagrams though. Keep doing these!
No I'm sorry,I'm afraid its not the video..maybe it's time to get your hearing checked my friend.
Same here. Tablet or desk top ,volume is low.
LMAO the opening intro was like well this is my place to be :)
Wow! That was very informative and well explained. It's obvious that a lot of research went into this. I'm impressed. WELL DONE!!
I'm here for all the geek, this is the stuff, that can't be found anywhere else.
Thanks for making and sharing these videos.
Great diagrams and explanation. Thank you for posting this!
This was a very difficult video to watch but, not your fault. Every 2.24 minutes or so, TH-cam inserted an ad that made it hard to keep up. I first toured the Texas at age 6 and fell in love with the ship. I'm now 72 and it's been a long and satisfying relationship. Thanks for all your videos.
Great work, I really appreciate the work that went into documenting this! I love hearing about engineering behind the battleships, and some of the facts were mind blowing indeed. I found the mechanical linkages to valves amazing
that was a extremely well done video! I can hardly wait to visit Texas to look for the valves and sounding tubes. LOL One a snipe, always a snipe. Thank you
Were you a hole snipe or a fresh air snipe?
@@Scott11078 Both. I spent time in the hole making water, running and maintaining the Distillers, AC units, pumps, valves etc. My last station was in small boats.
Outstanding video….. going from coal to oil was no easy feat…. Talk about American know how!!
As a marine engineer I can say only one thing: Very interesting!
Oil King!!
Exactly!! I was mostly interested in the more modern fast Battleships like the North Carolina class and up. However this video made me look at Texas and the older designs in a totally different light. The engineering and her evolution is very impressive!! This ship deserves to be saved. Plus in her time with her complexity I would imagine she had a DEDICATED crew to know her systems. Also what's impressive is the fact that her modernization was done in 16 months.
Our Oil King on the Kitty Hawk used to play this joke on some of newer watch standers that had to bring him fuel samples. One he had a lot of trust in his people to not screw the following up. New watch stander would get distracted so one of the sample containers would get replaced with a container filled with some very thinned out honey.
The watch stander would enter Central Control and bring the samples to the Oil King. He would inspect one or two then reach for the "special" one always placed in the same spot. He'd pick it up, look at it and swish it around a little. Then he'd unscrew the lid and smell it and then to the utter shock and horror of the watch stander quickly guzzle it down. "Yup that's some good fuel!"
@@Scott11078 Haha👍
My BB35 geek hat is proudly on as I watch another of your stellar videos, Tom.
The man who knew to much about the USS Texas! Lol I am glade that you do, Great videos! Thank you Sir. :-)
Thank you! Best video on Texas to date! :-)
The curved pipes were also expansion loops to prevent breakage for pipe growth.
Expansion joints were their primary function.
Decent video with fascinating information but your audio leaves much to be desired. Levels are uneven, changing between barely Audible and barely adequate, but the volume must be raised so high that the inevitable ads make listening a sharply jarring, painfully unpleasant experience.
Fantastic dives into one of my ( ok, just 'my') favorite boats. Thank you sir, you're scratching an itch!
Like many others here, I had only the merest hint of an idea of what was involved in the retrofit from coal to oil- this extraordinary video does a phenomenal job of clearly explaining what went into that work, and what her maintenance crew needs to be aware of today, even as a museum ship. This is truly well done!
OMG what a battleship 🤓 I am. I watched this whole video and found it fascinating. 😂. The only problems who would I tell all this new knowledge to 😆
Thank you Tom, A most interesting and comprehensive video, in fact it's the best explanation of one of these systems I have come across,well done. Regards.
Nice. My Dad served on the New York in WW II, sister to the Texas.
Please keep these videos coming! Thank you Tom.
So cool! Thanks!
That was a very nice bit of history. I enjoyed watching your video. 😎
You kick ass Tom!
I can't thank you enough for all this content,I can listen to these all day!
I knew the conversion of Texas and New York from coal to oil fired powerplants was complex but couldn't imagine how complex. Basically the entire midships had to be redesigned and rebuilt ... and this doesn't include the installation of the fuel tank and piping systems.
Ironically, it was the fact that sisters TX and NY still burned coal during WWI that enabled them to be deployed to join the Grand Fleet at Scapa Flow almost immediately after the US entered the Great War. Most of the Royal Navy heavy units already burned oil and thus placed a huge strain on Britain's ability to keep them supplied, but coal was still plentiful and readily available. TX, NY and other older units like Arkansas were thus deployed long before newer, oil fired ships.
I hadn't seen this channel before but TH-cam had figured out I'm a battleship nerd and also that I watch videos by another Tom Scott. I loved this detailed study. Off to find more of your videos!
Thank you Tom . I dug up some Coal under the Lawn last Week . Ha ha Our house was Coal heated as Built . About ten Years ago my Father would have been Fascinated with all the details . He was a service mechanic for Heating oil Furnaces . He also at one time knew a lot about Boilers . He also worked for the Company before the Coal Yard burnt . I enjoyed the Video for Him .
This is fascinating. Thank you.
Excellent video. Any chance you could do something similar on the boiler feedwater system?
I'm not too sure that I am going to do something on feed water. It is much simpler than fuel, didn't change much and had little impact upon the ship other than getting water back to the boilers and providing makeup water. However, I hope to do a detailed walk through of a boiler room in 2-3 months.
Great video, explanations of the complex systems. That photo of her after rework/upgrades is really nice.
At the 14:15 mark, is that a valve actuator rod with a couple inches cut out? If, why might that have been done? It just caught my eye.
Good eye! Most valves that I've seen in remote locations have had their reach rods cut like that. I can only assume that it is a safety measure to be sure none are opened and cause a flooding problem. Many of the tanks they serve have flooded at one time or another. Any open valves could potentially spread the flooding to other locations.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 That makes sense. I thought that appeared to be intentional, as opposed to failed in some strange way. Thank you for the reply.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 so, is it fair to say that much of the water intrusion and flooding over the past several years is due to the decay of this oil storage and supply system in combination with outer hull decay? If so, I bet it makes it tough to determine which tanks to pump out and access some of them with hoses.
Glad there was an oil king, very complicated system.
They must been NASTY WORKING ON THEM > Coal and its dust is very nasty to begin with, Not counting the NASY SMOKE
I'm wondering, why was coal generating black smoke? Usually coal smoke is gray to light gray, when it's that black it's usually because the firebox is starved of oxygen, but this wasn't the 1850s, surely they would've had blowers to feed air into the firebox right?
I am no expert on burning coal and haven't been around it much, but I may lose my man card if I didn't try to give an answer. They were capable of cleaner burning since I have seen photos of Texas and other coal burners putting out a haze of gray smoke. Texas and earlier U.S. dreadnoughts provided forced draft by pressurizing the entire boiler rooms, so they could get adequate air to the boilers under most conditions. My supposition is that there are at least a couple of reasons for making black smoke. First is coal quality. They didn't always have high quality anthracite available and sometimes had to use pretty dirty stuff. No amount of effort or draft is going to keep it from making smoke. My best guess is what was being asked of the boilers. If they were cruising at reasonable speeds, demand for coal was moderate and they were able to maintain the bed of coals on the fire grates at an even, optimum level for good burning. Plus, they kept the firebox doors shut much of the time which helped control air ratio with the dampers. However, if they were having to fire the boilers at maximum rate, the doors would be open most of the time while they continuously shoveled in coal. That largely defeated the ability to control air with the dampers and made it difficult to consistently maintain air at the proper ratio.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Thank you for your answer! And thank you for your videos! I'm so glad to have found a youtube channel that's passionate about the details of USS Texas, this ship has been through a lot of historical events and technological advancements, the equipment inside the ship tell great stories, I hope she'll still be around for decades to come.
I didn't know forced draft was by pressurizing the entire boiler room, I thought it was only sent through the firebox, I've always been fascinated by steam powerplants especially coal fired ones, partly because it's technology we've mostly lost today.
As for the quality of coal, you probably know Germany in the first world war had very poor quality coal, and yet photos of their pre-dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts (when they weren't being fired at in Jutland) have them display a clear gray smoke, the real downside of using poor quality coal is the remaining residue creating "clinkers" melting into solid rocks and clogging up the grates, anthracite despite being harder to light on fire, is preferred because it has less residue, supposedly German battleships had difficulty maintaining full speed because of clinkers, you do make a good point about burning at maximum rate, a lot of factors combine to starve a hot fire of it's oxygen.
How much would it suck to be the Blue Jacket/Striker/Snipe/Black Gang who had to chip and scrape and paint those void spaces?!
Not nearly as sucky as getting shot at in the trenches in France!
EXCELLENT!!
Hard to add: Extraordinary video. Well done !!!
Excellent tutorial - many thanks 🙏
My dad’s first assignment within the United States Navy was on the USS Texas from 1938-1939. He sailed on her during the summer of 1938 on an Annapolis midshipmen cruise to Europe. They docked in La Harve. In late 1939 he was assigned to destroyer/minesweeper USS Hamilton that completed North Atlantic convoys through 1941. Most of the convoys were to England, however after Germany attacked Russia, he was on two convoys from Iceland to Murmansk. In early 1943 he was assigned to a Fletcher Class Destroyer, USS CK Bronson. The ship had just been commissioned and my dad was promoted to Chief Petty Officer. Th CK Bronson traveled to Hawaii, through the Panama canal. She then took part in the Soloman Island campaign. In 1945, my dad was assigned to the USS MISSOURI. He and my uncles (also Navy veterans) described that ship as a SUPER BATTLEWAGON. He wound up meeting Harry Truman on the Missouri on a trip to Brazil in 1947.
It amazes me they didn't have a way to coal the ship requiring less labor. What a complicated system, that oil storage.
Fantastic job on this conversation vid with ol' Texas. Complexe subject but a fantastic job of explaining it! Great never before seen pics of places that weren't accessible!
Excellent. Thank you for posting!
Seeing how bad the blister walls look wouldn't it be better to remove the blister walls on both sides of the hull then sand blast, repair & paint the hull for a longer life span ? 🤔 Great video !
They are removing the blisters at this moment, except they will be rebuilt. It is important that they remain to not only provide buoyancy, but also provide the proper appearance for the ship. The blisters have been a source of flooding problems for many years, even going back to when the ship was in service. She is now in dry dock and the blisters are being completely removed below the waterline. They will be rebuilt, but will stop short of their original depth and they will be squared off at the bottom instead of being tapered and faired into the hull. This modification will make it far easier to access their bottoms for service and repair, while being completely hidden when the ship is back in the water.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 thanks for the information ! 👍🍺
Here for the geek fest lol
super friggen cool
Thanks so much for your informative videos! I was fortunate to have you as a docent when I toured the ship in 2009. At that time you pointed out openings on second deck against outboard bulkhead which you described as ammunition lifts for the 5 inch casemate guns. I enjoyed your explanation of the main guns magazine ammo hoist & loading system. Would appreciate a video explaining the magazine & ammo hoist system for secondary guns. Thank you for all you do!
It's nice to hear from a former guest! Making a video on the 5" hoists is a pretty good idea. The only downsides I can think of is that there isn't a lot to say on the subject and it would rely almost exclusively on still photos and drawings.
Outstanding Video
Holy moley, suddenly a 747's fuel system seems downright simplistic! Remarkable all the different jobs all the different engineers had to do to keep this ship running. And then there was the cooks, bakers, post master, and on and on.
All of those reach rods, when new and operating correctly could be understood by the “oil king” but if the ship were damaged or even run aground seriously could render many of those tanks useless as the rods would no longer line up to be accessed. Even a bad valve in an inaccessible part of the ship presents huge problems. Engineering had their hands full. Ex chief eng. merchant marine here.
Fascinating video. Was there a reason that they didnt replace the triple expansion engines with turbines at this time since the hull was cracked wide open to replace the boilers? I know the IJN did this to several of their older BB's during upgrades and I think the Italians too.
Plans exist that show proposals for either direct drive turbines or turbo electric propulsion. While I do not know this for a fact, my opinion is that the recips performed tolerably well and it wasn't worth the cost and yard time to replace them. Plus, improving propulsion wouldn't overcome the disadvantages of her incremental armor scheme and other design issues that kept her from being a first line battleship. Whatever the reason was for not changing engines, it wasn't a bad one. The existing engines proved to be pretty reliable with the only consistent problem being some nasty vibrations in certain cruising conditions.
They could easily bring this beauty back into service they just need to modernize her again to our specifications we have to ensure crew safety so instead of building a new ship she's still functional she can still fight she just needs a makeover and turned into a modern day battleship
Excellent video, great job Tom.
My Great Uncle was a MM boilerman who worked those boilers in '43. I have been lucky to get access to see the compartment.
One of the things I have always appreciated about the ship's management over the years is their enthusiasm toward veterans and their families. Until the ship closed for repairs, it was fairly common for the kids of sailors who have since passed to come on board and be given tours down to where their dads were stations and berthed. Having helped with that on occasion, I can honestly say that it was the most rewarding thing I have done on board the ship!
Excellent presentation. Very informative. Thank you.
I’m here for all the geek caps I can get! Great content good sir. Thank you.
I can see OSHA Confined Space permits being issued today .................................
I couldn't imagine how long it would have taken to fully actuate those remote valves with that manual system. The Kitty Hawk was pre digital so much was still the same. I was a Hull Technician we were the Repair division of engineering. The watch done by the lower enlisted was Sounding and Security rover. Besides patrolling the assigned spaces you also had to manually sound each fuel void and some times the caps to those tubes were pretty hard to find. We had a really bad bravo fire in 1999 which was probably less than a minute from being VERY bad by the time it was extinguished. What caused it was when they pressurized the void to feed the boilers it blew the brass cap off that covered the tube. Worn teeth just kept getting worse until POP! This particular sounding tube was beneath one of the main catapult steam lines, it's so hot nearly 2 feet thick lagging around it won't stop it from burning you.
Where we did manage to make visible advancements was in remote valve operation. Critical valves that needed responsive and fast operation had a motor attached to them. Hand crank ones were hydraulically assisted, and were still a pain to operate. We did use it to have fun with the new people.
When we had to cycle them someone never seeing it done before would walk up to us and ask. "It's manual shaft crank." "Whaaat!?" "Oh yeah man cascading failure boilers offline it's this or we're dead in the water.... And man are we getting awfully tired... 😏"
Good stories! Texas had a situation similar to your catapult steam line. While there were no sounding tubes in it, you had to climb down through a large steam line passage that carried the main steam lines between the boiler rooms and engine rooms to get to a compartment beneath it that contained valves, operators and steaming out fittings for tanks that lay outboard of it.
I am confused why a tank or void would ever be pressurized, except if checking for leaks. That seems to be inviting problems. I am sure there were good reasons, I just don't know what those may be.
As seen in the video, Texas' feed valve remote operators are typically bulkhead mounted and allowed the use of hand cranks that you could get your back into. This also applies to recirculating valves that I didn't discuss. The tough ones to work would be the "High-Low" remote operators for valves that draw fuel either 18" off the bottom or directly off the bottom. Their remote operators were small slotted disks set in the deck that were operated using a tee wrench. I would guess that the operators had to be regularly cleaned since they could get packed with dirt and debris, and also regularly exercised on tanks that were not being used. The only good news is these valves were always fully immersed in fuel oil that naturally lubricated them.
As one of the oil kings on my ship (LPD-17) this gives me nightmares
What was the last Class of battleships that were fitted with three anchors at the bow?
PS. She is looking pretty good at the end of 2022. I'd love to see her with cage masts, all the sponson 5"'ers, and torpedo tubes, but unless somebody comes up with an extra $60 million, the WWII configuration will have to do.
I haven't checked prior to Texas, but the New York class (Texas) and all U.S. battleships built between her and 1922 were equipped with at least 3 bow anchors in a variety of configurations. This stopped when all new battleship construction was halted for at least 10 years due to the Washington Naval Arms Limitation Treaty. U.S. battleships built after that were configured for only two anchors.
thanks this was a great video keep up the great work on the old girl.
I wonder what a new nuclear powered battleship would be like.
As originally constructed USS Texas was equipped with torpedo tubes. How many were there and where were they located?
There were two tubes on each side. See the drawing in this link. They were about 12-14' below the waterline, between turrets 1 and 2. battleshiptexas.info/images/Drawings/DeckPlans/1914/ExteriorProfile.jpg
Thank you that is the most comprehensive explanation that I or most people have heard, of how the fuel system was changed. The pictures inside the fuel tanks, That was the 1st for me. It has given me a much greater understanding than what I had thought. Thank you.
You are very kind, and you are very welcome!
Do you think you should have recorded a little louder??
Great video!! Keep them coming please!
I've toured this old girl several times over the years.
Great presentation! Thank you!