Ask An Expert- Battleships

[SlaterDoc]

Add to your list of available barrels!

Rusty, I found another 16/50 barrel just north of us! Too bad they would be so difficult to acquire during a midnight raid!
If only we could get Fedex to pick up and ship!

[RustyBattleship]

Do you mean the liners poking out of the barrels? If so I believe that just happens over time in which case I think the liner comes out, shaved and then re-installed but the whole gun has to come out for this. I wouldn't think it would be to terribly difficult to work on them it would just just take time and money (what doesn't). But then again I just sell paint and work on cars not BBs .

Replacing the barrels of the 5"/38 guns is relatively easy but still need a shipyard crane to lift them of and then transfer a new barrel to the mount.

But the 16-inchers are the hardest. It takes several days just to build the scaffolding to support the barrel as it's being eased out of the turret. Though the main deck is 1 1/2" thick reinforcement for the scaffolding continues down to the 6" thick 2nd deck.

The barrels are returned to an Army ordnance factory that has the quenching vats for the guns. The barrel is heated on the outside while the liner is cooled with Acetone and Dry Ice on the inside. The heat will expand the main barrel body while the liner shrinks from the freezing temperature inside.

Then the liner can be removed.

After the main body of the gun is inspected, it is re-heated while a new liner is being frozen. Now comes the tricky part -- lowering the frozen liner straight down into the main gun body without touching anything. But as soon as the liner is in place, the entire barrel is then quenched in oil to stabilize temperatures of all components.

[Dreadnought]

It would be cool if someone made a book just on the main guns and how they operate. The Iowa books that I've read really just put the specs in and thats it and the training video that I bought is nice but doesn't go really in depth.

Although I guess I could get a better understanding by taking the Turret II experience on the NJ huh Dread ;). Now you guys just need to move it closer to where I live .

Its going to take more then just a tour to understand how they function.

Little do these authors know that if they want to change the 16" FC system to digital is that the 5" guns also interlock with the 16" FC system oftenly. If you change one, you must change them all which will add a very large cost and alot of time to the job.

The reason I say this is that the 5" FC directors (Sky 1,2,3,&4) can be utilized to hold reference points in the FC system to aim the 16 guns while the 16" FCR locks onto target. The more reference points you have (triangulation), the better the accuracy of your aiming.

This would ADD 4 (5")directors. 6 (5") mounts and two FC computers in forward and aft 5" plot to their calculations outside of 2 (16") FCR and 2 plot rooms. If you intend the very same FC performance then you cannot just change a part of the system to digital it and expect it to work together as it presently does when one is assisted by the other. So in doing this you have only solved part of the problem. And this must be done to support all modes of gunnery orders to the turrets, mounts and directors as they presently do.

There is no mention of this in their articles and this is where I have the problem believing this to be an easy fix as per their papers.

[85 gt kid]

It would be cool if someone made a book just on the main guns and how they operate. The Iowa books that I've read really just put the specs in and thats it and the training video that I bought is nice but doesn't go really in depth.

Although I guess I could get a better understanding by taking the Turret II experience on the NJ huh Dread ;). Now you guys just need to move it closer to where I live .

[Dreadnought]

Do you mean the liners poking out of the barrels? If so I believe that just happens over time in which case I think the liner comes out, shaved and then re-installed but the whole gun has to come out for this. I wouldn't think it would be to terribly difficult to work on them it would just just take time and money (what doesn't). But then again I just sell paint and work on cars not BBs .

Not quite. All of the ships were equiped with a "cutlass". If the liner were to protrude past the muzzle stop then they would cutlass it in place. To remove the liner you are essentially removing the barrel (since they are assembled together via hot and cold method) so you might as well send it for a full rebuild and put a new one in its place. Alot of work.

It takes alot of time, experience and understanding and reading to understand the entire system.

These men that belive they can replace the 16" FC system with digital and have no problems obviously have not done that much.

[desertswo]

I remember reading about the Iowa having trouble with the oscilating of the barrels at various times, (16",). I also read in the book "A Glimpes of Hell," they also had problems with some of the AA mounts not being able to travers back and forth. How accurate those claims are have always been a question by me.

I wonder how many people have the skill required to work on a system like those 16" guns?

There were a lot of things in that book that I thought were total BS. Most specifically, the professional reputations of two men who I respect greatly and would follow into hell were unfairly impugned via hearsay. In a court of law it wouldn't stand up, and the author would be subject to charges of libel and defamation of character. The two people in question, being classy gentlemen, just let it go. Don't get me wrong, the NIS or NCIS or whatever it was called at the time, investigation was a goat rope from the beginning. But then, they aren't Jethro Leroy Gibbs, and never have been. Something any seaman deuce could tell you.

[85 gt kid]

Do you mean the liners poking out of the barrels? If so I believe that just happens over time in which case I think the liner comes out, shaved and then re-installed but the whole gun has to come out for this. I wouldn't think it would be to terribly difficult to work on them it would just just take time and money (what doesn't). But then again I just sell paint and work on cars not BBs .

[shadow01]

I remember reading about the Iowa having trouble with the oscilating of the barrels at various times, (16",). I also read in the book "A Glimpes of Hell," they also had problems with some of the AA mounts not being able to travers back and forth. How accurate those claims are have always been a question by me.

I wonder how many people have the skill required to work on a system like those 16" guns?

[desertswo]

Agreed sir,
One could imagine they couldnt sail anywhere without a tell tale plume overhead, quite visible on the horizon i suppose.

One can also imagine they didnt sortie for very long periods without having to un foul the boilers if their btu value was infact that low as far as SHP is concerned.

Yeah, their firesides would have been filthy, filthy, filthy.

[Dreadnought]

Agreed sir,
One could imagine they couldnt sail anywhere without a tell tale plume overhead, quite visible on the horizon i suppose.

One can also imagine they didnt sortie for very long periods without having to un foul the boilers if their btu value was infact that low as far as SHP is concerned.

[desertswo]

Good morning Sir,
From what I gather the gist of it is that in order to get the ship underway after recieving damage it was possible to steam on heavy salt water if parts of the propulsion systems were damaged and you were in crisis. I concur with you on salt and calcium deposits forming and damaging the boilers tubes and blockage due to scale. I think you will find in this report that not only did they not get the overall SHP out of their units but that they negated several systems in their boilers when its pointed out that they were definately needed and played a major part of why IJN ships could not produce the SHP to weight ratios the USN was getting with ships weighing in at the same displacement.

Enjoy the read, its quite eye opening if you know what I mean.

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/prima...%20S-01-12.pdf

I read through all that. Interesting. Perhaps more so because they actually had the theory of boiler water-feed water maintenance and testing pretty well down. I didn't sit there and do the stoichiometry to put it into terms of modern 600 - 1200 PSI boilers, but it was pretty representative of the technology of the time, as well as that still in use when I first came on the scene. Had they been able to distill make up feed worth a damn, that aspect of their operations at least might have been OK. It's the design flaws of the boilers themselves that are most startling. In a word, "caca." Not much more to say than that. Kind of weird given they had pretty good teachers in the form of the Royal Navy, but whatever. It's a wonder they did as well as they did.

[desertswo]

See here, here and here.

Regards.

Matt.

Of the three, the Cruise Books are the best source. I counted noses in B-Division and the numbers made sense. Why? The BBs were fairly modern steam plants with one exception. They had no Automatic Combustion Control systems, therefore they were operated in "stick shift" all the time. Local Manual Control of all final control elements. That is labor intensive. I counted the numbers of E-6 and below and then divided them across the four plants, and came up with a bit over 33 per plant. That is enough to man three full watch sections operating in Local Manual. Good to go. The other two sources were on the low side, especially the first one I believe.

[Dreadnought]

See here, here and here.

Regards.

Matt.

Ok, I just wanted to see how they are counting. If we are going to count ALL of Engineering then I'm good with it.

I was about to say, as far as the boilers themselves are concerned, your looking at between 5-7 men per watch, per boiler, then you have others such as Main Engine (Fireroom) SSTG, Aft Diesels, Water and Oil monitoring, PM, Fuel monitoring, Evaporators, Power switching, oiling etc.

Then ofcoarse those that have to do the dreaded paperwork.

I was going to say that there is alot more to engineering then just the boilers themselves and they by themselves are not that manpower intensive outside of blower and burner changes and fuel nozzle changes/adjustments.

Were I used to work we ran 6 identical boilers and supplied power with 30 guys and less on shift for 12 hours at a shot not 4 on 4 off as in the USN although the majority of guys were former fresh USN and some active and others mechanics by trade.

Soup to nuts.

[MattR]

Matt, I have a question regarding the "other board" on the subject of replacing the boilers with diesels..... Where did you get the steam plant (engineering) personel requirement numbers? No offense but they are way off in the context they are being used.

See here, here and here.

Regards.

Matt.

[Dreadnought]

Matt, I have a question regarding the "other board" on the subject of replacing the boilers with diesels..... Where did you get the steam plant (engineering) personel requirement numbers? No offense but they are way off in the context they are being used.