Largest Iowa ammo load?

[Rick DeBay]

I remember seeing a post from Rusty about experimenting with different shell arrangements in the turrets to increase the ammunition load. I can't find the post any more.
Does anyone know what post this was in? Rusty, do you have any more information about it? Thanks.

[Dreadnought]

Without looking I can approximate at 1200+ rounds (give or take 20-30) for the three turrets. Not counting the special rounds storage in turret II (Atomic) Also Turret II has one extra proectile flat because of the height). There was also "myths" supposedly certain captains who wont be named who supposedly also used the projectile hoists as storage for extra 16"/50 shells to be stored. Believe it or not.

[RustyBattleship]

Originally Posted by Rick DeBay

I remember seeing a post from Rusty about experimenting with different shell arrangements in the turrets to increase the ammunition load. I can't find the post any more.
Does anyone know what post this was in? Rusty, do you have any more information about it? Thanks.

Hope this attached drawing of mine helps. As far as 5-inchers go, I have a list around here somewhere but haven't the foggiest of what stack of papers and manuals it is hidden in.

[Rick DeBay]

I finally found Rusty's post, from 09-29-2006.

Originally Posted by RustyBattleship

The study for extra ammo was a cursory study looking at the possibility of putting in one more row of projectiles inboard of the outer row at the upper projectile handling flat. That was done in the mid-1980's along with a study of putting 5"/54 mounts on in place of the 5"/38 mounts and if the projectiles and powder cans could fit in the ammo trunks (only two trunks had one squeeze turn but it could have been modified).

Does anyone have any information from that study? From the few photos I've seen, it already looks pretty cramped in there.

Originally Posted by RustyBattleship

I don't recall the date of the 1968 reduced service charge "Oh Sh#t" incident. But you can quickly look it up in Paul Stillwell's book on New Jersey's Viet Nam reactivation and it even has a picture of the burned hole in the edge of the powder bag.

And part of the picture's caption, I believe, is "...shortly before being thrown overboard."

[tlturbo]

I saw something in Rusty's cool diagraham above that I would like some clarification on.
In the middle at the top, it says

Aluminum Powder Tank
Full Service Charges
(3) 110 lb bags per tank
Up to 2 tanks may be
required (660 lbs)
for a full service shot

Was a full service shot 3 or 6 110 lb bags? What was the load using the reduced 55 lb bags. Why did you need reduced charge powder bags if you sould just cut back on the full charge bags? OR could you load various combinations of both bags to get different velocities?

Also, was the powder required for a full service shot the same for both shells? The AP is 800 lbs heavier - did it take more powder?

Terry

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by tlturbo

I saw something in Rusty's cool diagraham above that I would like some clarification on.
In the middle at the top, it says

Aluminum Powder Tank
Full Service Charges
(3) 110 lb bags per tank
Up to 2 tanks may be
required (660 lbs)
for a full service shot

Was a full service shot 3 or 6 110 lb bags? What was the load using the reduced 55 lb bags. Why did you need reduced charge powder bags if you sould just cut back on the full charge bags? OR could you load various combinations of both bags to get different velocities?

Also, was the powder required for a full service shot the same for both shells? The AP is 800 lbs heavier - did it take more powder?

Terry

A full service shot is 6 (110lb.) bags for the AP projectile. That is what gives it the velocity it needs to both reach and penetrate its target.

The reduced service charge was utilized in the HE projectile. It did not require the penetration that the AP round did since primarily used for shore bombardment or to scatter troop movements and some softer targets.

The reduced service charge (55lb) is packed differently then the full service change in the canisters. More to one canister then the full charges.

I have not heard of the bags being mixed in any fashion with exception to testing. From what I have read the reduced charge tended to roll in the barrel chamber and not sit uniform (end on end if you would) and there by create a danger to the primer exaust port and not burn uniformly. This could cause the rifle to explode like a peeled bannana if you would or a backflash in the barrel.

One reason that you would not mix the charges is that by mixing you would have opened both canisters (1) 110lb & (1) 55lb of powder. This releases the agents (either & alcohol) that they are packed in keeping them preserved. Once the bags hit the air they can dry out the bags making them alot more explosive instead of slow burning making the chances of a gun explosion that much more possible.

Hope this helps.
I will look further and see what I can find on these reports.

[eocoolj]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Without looking I can approximate at 1200+ rounds (give or take 20-30) for the three turrets. Not counting the special rounds storage in turret II (Atomic) Also Turret II has one extra proectile flat because of the height).

During what time period were the atomic shells carried? How many were carried on each Iowa?

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

One reason that you would not mix the charges is that by mixing you would have opened both canisters (1) 110lb & (1) 55lb of powder. This releases the agents (either & alcohol) that they are packed in keeping them preserved. Once the bags hit the air they can dry out the bags making them alot more explosive instead of slow burning making the chances of a gun explosion that much more possible.

You have this part wrong. You don't open powder canisters prior to use because the propellant is hygroscopic. The absorbed water will reduce the burn time, causing reduced muzzle velocity and inaccurate rounds.

[RustyBattleship]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

You have this part wrong. You don't open powder canisters prior to use because the propellant is hygroscopic. The absorbed water will reduce the burn time, causing reduced muzzle velocity and inaccurate rounds.

The propellent cannisters are opened to extract the powder bags, pass them through the doubled passing scuttles to the lower powder handling room, rolled onto the powder hoist, lifted up to the gun room, rolled onto the loading tray and slow rammed into the chamber behind the already loaded projectile.

Also, on a load out of ammo, the monorail in the 16" powder rooms isn't high enough to stack the upper two rows of cans. So they are decanned in the lower handling room, the cans are hand passed into the magazine and manually placed up in their row. Then the 3 bags of decanned powder is manually placed back into the cannisters.

Sometimes the bags don't seem to go as far in as before. I have personally seen crewmen chin themselves up by the monorail and push the bags in with their feet.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by eocoolj

During what time period were the atomic shells carried? How many were carried on each Iowa?

That information will never be found for the public to read as far as I know. The USN will never tell you when they are packing HOT or have ever. They were modified to carry only a few after the end of WWII and the beginning of the Korean conflict.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

You have this part wrong. You don't open powder canisters prior to use because the propellant is hygroscopic. The absorbed water will reduce the burn time, causing reduced muzzle velocity and inaccurate rounds.

Gun, This was what I was trying to relate. Perhaps I chose the wrong wording. My bad.

[RustyBattleship]

Originally Posted by eocoolj

During what time period were the atomic shells carried? How many were carried on each Iowa?

They never were.

Project Katy was a design study to carry nuclear projectiles on board the Iowa's. Basically it was the 11" Army "Atomic Cannon" projectile in a Sabot. But stringent rules and restrictions by the Atomic Energy Commission negated the project by ordering positive capture loading mechanisms. In other words, no sling suspended supplying or loading of magazines with the shells was allowed.

The designs for the conversion to positive capture conveyer belts would chew up too much space, cut too many holes in the barbettes and turret foundations, etc. And cost way too much money to be worthwhile.

[tlturbo]

The nuclear shell was the MK 23 which was a modification to the 1900 lb MK13 HC projectile.
Here is the excerpt from Slovers site.

3) A total of fifty Mark 23 "Katie" nuclear projectiles were produced during the 1950s with development starting in 1952 and the first service projectile being delivered in October 1956. It is possible that the W23 warhead may have simply been installed inside of an otherwise unaltered HC Mark 13 shell body, although one of the sources listed below says that the projectile was slightly smaller than the Mark 13. USS Iowa, USS New Jersey and USS Wisconsin had an alteration made to Turret II magazine to incorporate a secure storage area for these projectiles. USS Missouri was not so altered as she had been placed in reserve in 1955. This secure storage area could contain ten nuclear shells plus nine Mark 24 practice shells. These nuclear projectiles were all withdrawn from service by October 1962 with none ever having been fired from a gun. One projectile was expended as part of Operation Plowshare (the peaceful use of nuclear explosive devices) and the rest were deactivated. USS Wisconsin did fire one of the practice shells during a test in 1957. It is not clear whether or not any of the battleships ever actually carried a nuclear device onboard, as the US Navy routinely refuses to confirm or deny which ships carry nuclear weapons. At least one Mark 23 shell body still exists at the National Atomic Museum in Albuquerque, New Mexico, as can be seen on the additional pictures page.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by tlturbo

At least one Mark 23 shell body still exists at the National Atomic Museum in Albuquerque, New Mexico, as can be seen on the additional pictures page.

Thers also one at WTG Pac's,Museum. Formerly Nuclear Weapons Training Group Pacific on Coronado. But you will need a TS clearance to visit.

NWTGP or as we use to call it No Where To Go Party