Below the Armored Belt of USS Texas

[@mattrushing5573]

I realize this is an old video, but I just stumbled across it. As a Texan who is very proud of our battleship, I'd like to give the New Jersey a major thank you for the shout-out to our ship. She is in drydock right now, finally getting some much needed TLC. All of the remaining USN battleships are treasures and deserve our care.

[@kilianortmann9979]

I imagine the caps make it pretty difficult to check the torque of the belt nuts, 50 miles after changing to the winter belt.

[@D5quared91]

I love Battleship New Jersey But I love Ryan even more! He is charming and has a relaxing voice. Love him!! :)

[@gregwestphal]

I love Ryan's smirk before he tells the subtle joke at the beginning about checking out nuts below the belt. :)

[@geoguy001]

visited Texas a couple of years ...she is unique among surviving dreadnought type battleships with her triple expansion reciprocating engines...her engineering spaces are huge

[@JM-jv7ps]

To my knowledge, there are no other surviving Dreadnought battleships

[@Convoycrazy]

I seem to remember flexible stay-bolts on locomotive boilers being capped, not sure if this was to protect the nut from corrosion, or to protect anyone from a failed stay bolt fastener, or both. Very interesting. Great video!

[@matthewerwin4677]

The Big Boy 4014 has caps over the stay bolts. There's a video on here that explains them. I think they had welded caps to stop steam leaks.

[@caseysowell8149]

On a locomotive boiler the flexible staybolt caps (of whatever style they may be) are pressure retaining.

[@albertoa.r.5886]

Could the caps on the battleship be to make the armoured section water tight?

[@SheepInACart]

@@albertoa.r.5886 Not really, if the bolt moved enough to get more than a tiny bead of water in (and pumping in an emergency just don't care about whats letting one drip at a time in), the cap is long unseated from the forces, and the few ships that had them nearly exclusively had internal belts anyway. On steam locomotives avoiding weeping across temperature cycles, protecting bolt from corrosion and even insulating are also factors which warships armor didn't normally face.

[@sb859]

Ryan, an amazing amount of hidden history you are bringing to light, and showing the love to all the other museum ships is awesome.

[@jimmypaloutzian2013]

It really is wonderful that she's being restored. People tend to forget that she's the last of her class .there are no other dreadnought left in the world to my knowledge. A true representation not just of the technology but the political climates that shaped her. The young men who fight lived and died . Surviving not 1 but 2 world Wars. And that makes her more than worthy for preservation.

[@TXGRunner]

Thank you so very much for doing videos on Texas, Drum, and other museum ships. You've pioneered this space and you're being very generous giving them exposure. I hope someday we can sponsor your visiting Mikasa in Japan or exhibits in Europe to learn about their different approaches to preservation and education. Thanks again.

[@proud_tobe_texan2890]

Really loving the amount of vids you guys are making on the Texas ♥️

[@yes_head]

It's super cool to have you exploring USS Texas, Ryan! It's easy to look at the interior of these ships and marvel at their tank-like construction, but then you look at photos of battle damage when ships came back from combat and you realize that in wartime all that armor is sometimes the equivalent of a wet paper towel.

[@loualiberti4781]

It’s Amazing that Texas is finally being repaired !!!

[@sambrown8224]

At 1:35, If the nut shears off, there is a source of flooding. Modern ships still bolt things like coolers to their hulls and the nuts are enclosed in a steel pipe with a cap on it to prevent flooding. Also USS North Carolina's torpedo hit sheared a piece of her armor so I'd look there for instances of damage and how the armor attachments did in combat And IJN Yamato showed what happens when your bolted joints are't that good.

[@woodscrewz363]

I wonder if the bolt covers are a lesson learned from the British. They did have a lot of capital ship combat in World War 1.

[@cadetrenew]

Its amazing to see how far you have come, Ryan. When you first started these videos, you could tell how uncomfortable you were talking to the camera (which is totally normal and understandable), and now you are making jokes about USS Texas having giant nuts without ever so much as a stutter lmao Love these videos and can't wait to make my way to visit Big J. Keep it up, man!

[@astancilstancil4529]

I believe that fort drum 14 inch turret took a bomb hit on day 3 and a bolt went flying causing injuries. That was probably reported to the navy. Lee tanks and early Sherman's were extremely prone for armor bolts flying as well. Alaska pictures seem to show bolt caps in the turrets as well. Bolt caps may have been late war construction to address these concerns.

[@StarWarsFanatic14]

Sherman tanks didn't have bolted armor like the Lees did. They were either cast or welded. But yes, bolts on early tanks did break loose and become projectiles sometimes.

[@Tuck-Shop]

@@StarWarsFanatic14 Some of the Shermans, if not most had bolted on transmissions at the front. Later versions had built up armour around the bolts to lessen the chance of a bolt being struck and sent flying through the crew compartment.

[@StarWarsFanatic14]

@@Tuck-Shop TIL. I never knew that. Many thanks

[@LafayetteCCurtis]

The bolts holding the Sherman transmission cover in place didn't really project all that much into the crew compartment and the transmission itself (along with the differential and final drive) would have blocked most of the paths by which these bolts could have been thrown around inside.

[@fire304]

Great video. Here's my suspicion on the nut caps... I'm fascinated by big guns and armor, so in addition to following battleship stuff, I follow tank stuff. Prior to WWII most tanks were riveted armor. But as anti tank guns became more powerful it was discovered that even if the armor stops the shell, the rivets and bolts could sheer off and become lethal inside the tank. This problem became really apparent early in World War II. Perhaps Navy planners were aware of this and preemptively added it to ships being built in that period?

[@kieljay1]

Hey I just want to extend my gratitude to you for the great informative videos that has truly helped me through my isolation here in the UK. I hope Ryan gets to see this . Thank you once more

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Thanks for sharing! - Ryan, Libby, and the whole team

[@CorbettFrench]

Thanks for coming to my home town and visiting our ship

[@tompittmon9250]

Really appreciate your support of battleship texas, hopefully what is done to texas helps in the future with battleship new jersey when she goes to drydock.

[@thewordisgood1544]

Thank you Battleship New Jersey for these videos about Battleship Texas! Come on Texas!

[@cleverusername9369]

0:20 well there's the "Dad Joke of the Year" lol

[@JoshSees]

I was thinking what is this April 1 lol

[@loveisall5520]

I love this ship, living in the Houston area, have been visiting since being a child in the sixties. Awaiting the refurb and so grateful to all have supported her.

[@jameshanlon5689]

Welcome to Texas Ryan. Glad to have you here.

[@tomlockhart4225]

Thanks for visiting the Texas, I appreciate you bringing attention to her.

[@keithrosenberg5486]

The South Dakota took some battleship class shell hits during the Guadalcanal campaign.

[@clintona.2557]

The caps are for personnel protection. To help prevent injury if they are run into by crew members.

[@AhsokaTano-M.J.T.G-]

Just gonna say this now I know I shouldn’t numerous I just made numerous comments to be like this is someone that is so big enough to probably go straight through somebody’s heart

[@budguy8829]

Had read that where both the USS Colorado (Tinian) and USS South Dakota (Guadalcanal) had been hit by numerous medium caliber guns and that an older style armor layout like what USS Texas had might have helped. Though the older system wouldn't have stopped as much heavy caliber shells or even some medium caliber shells fired at close range. The USS Missouri took a kamikaze hit to her belt don't know if that would have hit hard enough to sheer off a bolt. Think she still has the dent in her side from where she was hit by the kamikaze.

[@SealofPerfection]

Kamikaze that hit Missouri only dented the outer hull, never got to the belt. SoDak was hit many times, including by 8" and 14" shells, and her armor held up just fine. Colorado never had her armor tested, she wasn't hit by anything that could penetrate it, and I believe her armor would have held up just fine had she been in SoDak's place at Guadalcanal. We just never got in a real slugging match with another Battleship....fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it.

[@SealofPerfection]

@@Future-Preps35 Actually, some think that 14" AP indeed hit SoDak, and the shell was yawed by her outer STS armor before it hit the main belt. No way to know for now, but it's very possible AP hit her.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

@@SealofPerfection didn't a Japanese round end up hitting the aft barbet? I remember correctly a hit at kind of an odd angle and it decapped the round, failing to explode. I think that drakenafel mentions it in his second night Battle of Guadalcanal video

[@SealofPerfection]

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer Yes, and originally it was thought that was an HE round, but recently it's been said that was an AP round that got decapped and yawed so it didn't hit head-on. Which is exactly what the outer STS armor was supposed to do.

[@pastorjerrykliner3162]

So, when the USS Wyoming and USS Utah were "demilitarized" in the 1930's, and had their armor removed (as well as their main guns), did they accomplish that by "unbolting" it? And, if so, that's pretty straightforward.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

Well they could unbolt it but they would have to put another bolt in its placed in order to keep the water out. But yeah that's basically how they did it. I imagine if you weld the armor belt into one solid monolithic piece of metal and it gets damaged, that's a hell of a big piece of metal to take off and replace as opposed to sections. Jesus can you imagine the ratchet you need to take them both off? LOL!

[@samsonn25]

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer You can only weld the edges, once you cut those the whole plate is free. Now would use a torque gun BUT back in the day, the ratchet and socket is big of course but, they use an extension bar or pipe add on to it that may be 10-15 feet long though

[@hawkeye2816]

I mean it was designed to be easy to replace. Even if an incoming shell doesn't penetrate the armor, the plate might be dented or cracked. The plates needed to be replaceable with minimal effort to get the ship back to the fight. SoDaks and Iowas only had an internal belt because treaty limitations made increasing the angle difficult otherwise. Internal belts require the shell plating to be removed before the belt can even be accessed, so repair times are greatly increased.

[@rvd1269]

@@hawkeye2816 ẞL

[@roadsweeper1]

Ryan, you forgot the 2nd Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. USS South Dakota got mauled by Kirishima and Hiei, which eventually got roasted by USS Washington. But agreed, was one of the rare occasions that US battleships actually got into a slugging match.

[@LafayetteCCurtis]

I think Guadalcanal was one of those two battles Ryan mentioned, and he probably has a point in that Washington inflicted much more damage upon the Japanese than they did to the SoDak.

[@MrChickennugget360]

Hiei was not there having been sunk after the 1st Naval Battle of Guadalcanal.

[@metaknight115]

Hiei was pounded into scrap metal by various heavy cruisers a few days earlier, and it was only Kirishima. That’s why you don’t use a battlecruiser as a battleship.

[@robertlian2009]

I was taught that the caps were added as a result of lessons learned from the battle of Jutland.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

I was wondering if that was a possibility. It's not like a safety wire would have helped.

[@haywoodyoudome]

3:55 "degaussing system" or part of the invisibility/time travel system like the USS Eldridge....(que spooky music)

[@31dknight]

Great video from the battleship.

[@danliberty734]

Hindsight is always 20/20 They did not know at the time, so they erred on the side of caution to protect the sailors. We now know that they were a waste of time and weight, but they couldn't have known at the time, and no admiral wanted to a grieving family about woulda, coulda, shoulda covering the nuts.

[@ashman187]

BB = Below the Belt. Thanks for the easy one Ryan...

[@quinnjones2886]

Hey, my grandfather Courtney Jones was officer of the deck on the New Jersey. He is still alive and well. I wasn’t sure if this warranted an email.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Thanks for sharing! When was he on board?

[@quinnjones2886]

@@BattleshipNewJersey I’m not super fluent in how naval rank or jobs work so I will list what I know. Age:18 Bunk: top one in a compartment on the main deck, starboard side aft. Battle-station: Main battery control room deep down in the center of the ship. A low deck. Year: 1954 on a summer training cruise Rank maybe?: midshipman cadet My father always told me that he was officer of the deck but I won’t get butthurt if he wasn’t. UPDATE: After some more talking it turns out that he was officer of the deck on the carrier Valley Forge from 1957-1960 sorry for the confusion

[@maxcorey8144]

You do a great job of explaining much about US Navy ships. You are rather rough and tumble too, which is a good thing because it fits.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Texas was in Europe for a lot of WW2, she would have been much more vulnerable to U-boat torpedo attacks than more modern battleships. The WW1 vintage battleships at Pearl Harbor and the Royal Oak and Barham as well as the WW1 era battleship/cruiser hull derived carriers Eagle and Courageous were devastated by torpedoes. The older Japanese ships fared no better.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

USS Texas was involved in Normandy and operation dragoon. It would have been exposed to fire from shore batteries so it could have very well have had its armored belt tested pretty thoroughly in that situation. Thankfully she came through largely unscathed.

[@colinboynton192]

You got a like just for the intro

[@libraeotequever3pointoh95]

"... Everything's bigger in Texas. ..." LOL :-D. Priceless. Thanks Ryan. :-)

[@pauld6967]

Two theories: 1) Some people are fastidious about inconsequential things, so perhaps they simply thought the cap is needed to hide the "ugliness" of an exposed nut & bolt assembly. 2) Since sailors get bored, they might hunt up a wrench and undo the nut as something to do. Like people who can't leave a switch unflipped. Weld a cap over it and the temptation is removed.

[@brucesheehe6305]

Ryan for President. You are GREAT!

[@ericcorse]

IIRC those nuts are puny compared to the connecting rods.

[@arniejohanson8153]

Definitely do plenty more of the Texas.

[@yellow17pig]

It would be interesting to remove one of the Iowa armored belt bolt caps to see the inner construction. It is possible that there is no bolt, and instead, a stud from the armor belt is welded to the hull plating. The cap might be the exterior dress applied to the weld.

[@SheepInACart]

More info exists than that, we know the number of bolts and even the thread pitch...

[@a2broslol]

Pro tip #69: When visiting the USS New Jersey, make a beeline right to the stern and if need be, climb up the railings like a bat outta hell towards the helicopter control thing. The helicopter crash alarm still works :D

[@uaetub]

Enjoy your videos tremendously. Keep'm coming

[@AggiePhil]

Ryan, please consider moving to Galveston and taking over operations at USS Texas. We need and want your talents!

Thumps up for mentioning my home Region of Ostfriesland :) Well at least a bit :)

[@billj5645]

Those bolts appear to be manufactured with hex flats on the end of the threaded portion possibly so they can be held in place and tightened from inside the ship not requiring someone outside to hold a wrench on the bolt. A form of this is used today in high strength bolts used in building construction so the tightening tool can hold the bolt and tighten the nut at the same time. The head of the bolt on the other end is just rounded with nothng for a wrench to hold onto.

[@fluffernaut9905]

Everyone: looking at the interesting facts about the Battleship Texas! Me: looping Ryan saying "These Nuts" and giggling insanely.

[@balham456]

British tanks early in WW2 used riveting. Solid shot strikes would dislodge the rivets which would ricochet inside the fighting compartment. Later designs moved to welding.

[@davelewandoski4292]

Great video Ryan, making comparison's between Texas and the Iowa's. Thanks!

[@deancaskey5782]

I would think the welded caps were more of a water tightness function. If the ship takes a hit the bolts could loosen allowing water to start seeping through. Just my thoughts:) love the channel

[@thurin84]

i like how quickly ryan had to turn his head to preserve his straight face lol.

[@judsonkr]

Welcome to Texas!

[@barryscott6222]

I should imagine a torpedo hit could create a situation where bolts/nuts could become projectiles. And could likely happen while not at General Quarters.

[@anthonyalfeo1899]

The Iowa’s were gold platers, imbued with the best and latest thoughts on all features of the ship. (Technically so we’re the New York’s but decades earlier) I wonder if the later standard battleships had the welded caps.

[@johnking1896]

I know that weight is the #1 item the designers must have at the top of the table to get the most they can with what is given the nod for production of. Texas did more with what She had and more when the Capt. ordered flooding to give better angles to reach targets beyond what an even keel could achieve.

[@henrycarlson7514]

Interesting , Thank you. If they are capped how do you tell if they get loose?

[@davy1458]

If you ask a frog what he used to construct his home...."rivets!!" Will be his answer.

[@brucermarino]

Thanks! I believe bolt shearing was an issue with early tanks. Perhaps the designers took a que from this. Keep up the great work!

[@U.F.0.]

In Ryan's voice...."turn your head to the left and cough"

[@jerredwayne8401]

Welcome to Texas y'all

[@jameswinfield7837]

Was the lesson learnt from other navies who did get involved in slugging matches.

[@bigbuckeye76]

Ryan…technically there were three US BB on BB engagements…don’t forget about Massachusetts and Jean Bart

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

Didn't Jean Bart hit USS Massachusetts with one main gun round for no damage?

[@TheTubaMan2]

It sure would distribute magnetism more evenly from the degaussing system into the hull if those bolts were capped.

[@mikehoshall6150]

Hey Ryan, there was one case where an American battleship took 16 inch hits. South Dakota took some major caliber hits at Guadalcanal just before Washington blew the Kirishima out of the water. Only time I can think of.

[@simonjackson7269]

Bolts and Rivets on Tanks were known to shear off when hit causing injury and death....it was a well known issue in the early part of WW2..

[@tonymanero5544]

The amount of kinetic energy from a 2200 to 2500 lbs shell at terminal velocity of 2,000 fps that can shear off those large nuts & bolts would easily pierce through a welded cap. The caps on Iowa’s would appear to be cosmetic to me.

[@jimfleming3975]

If there was a problem with drunks untying a ship's lines, then (prior to the Iowa class) maybe there was a problem with drunks with wrenches unbolting the armor.

[@JackBWatkins]

Ryan, you think our nuts are big in Texas, wait until you see the wrench! But, really would love to see some of the tools used by the crew on massive fasteners.

[@ethanphillips8637]

I think that maybe a damage control measure against flooding, not spalling. as I recall one of the Iowas was involved in a collision and recieved a new bow segment.

[@JP-ex9fd]

Great content!

[@tim_bbq1008]

I vote wasted weight. How does one check that the nuts are still tight over time? I could imagine that thermal cycling might work on loosening the nuts over time. Thanks for sharing!

[@TomokosEnterprize]

Most certainly cap those bolts. There isn't enough weight to worry about.

[@watertriton]

I love that you’re doing other ships. I hope this becomes a regular thing. Spinoff channel?

[@jordantheman4653]

The bolts may become projectiles because the bolted connections are under a preload. The nut is tightened to stretch the bolt and compress the materials being connected. These are very large nuts and bolts so they have a very large preload. If something were to shear the bolt in half, the nut with half a bolt in it could shoot back like a rubber band being released. Maybe. Not sure.

[@mikewalker4330]

Oh SHIT! They hit me in the nuts!

[@ashman187]

BB = Bowl for the Bolt.

[@randymagnum143]

If there is a big exposed nut, some jackwagon will eventually try to loosen it.

[@paramounttechnicalconsulti5219]

Maybe the lack of covers on Texas, as compared to New Jersey, have to do with access? The armor on Texas was an exterior belt bolted to the "backing" which was the actual ship hull. Hulls flex while under way and, since the armor was exterior to the flexion, it would feel more force. In short, did they have to periodically tighten those nuts on ships with exterior armor belts? Wild guess, but I would guess that an interior citadel would almost be "floating" with respect to hull flexure (at least to a degree), so they wouldn't need access to what surely must have been shin and skull smashers if one somehow lost one's balance on a rolling ship; hence the covers? (Love this sort of stuff, there HAS to be some archived document in the boxes of the Old Bureau of Construction! I can see these covers taking up many meetings)

[@adamsears1403]

Could be some historian engineer concerned about shearing bolts from the M3 Stuart getting hit and those bolts/rivots became projectiles after being hit. That maybe why Iowa's bolts are welded caps. Just a theory.

[@CS-zn6pp]

Tbh, when he said he was below the waterline I was a little surprised as I heard that most of USS Texas was off limits below the waterline due to flooding and the only thing preventing it from sinking was that it was on the bottom already...

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Thats mostly myth, she isn't leaking that much

[@patrickkasper2776]

Interesting topics

[@TheBlackob]

I've got a question, not really related to this video: How do Ships keep water out of the engines / firebox? With a funnel that big, a noticable amount of water should come in, in a storm.

[@tsufordman]

Are those caps only hollow caps, or are they fitted so that they act as a lock nut, and keep the nuts/bolts properly torqued?

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

Can you picture it you got an article 13 and you think you're going to get some KP it said you're handed the torque wrench and told to check the armor.

[@RattelP-sx8tx]

Imagine having to tighten those boats

[@djolley61]

I'd hate to trip and fall into one of those bolts.

[@jimcronin2043]

If a hit on the NJ would have been powerful enough to shear off the bolt, how much could that welded on cap have helped?

[@SheepInACart]

It can help a lot, not because it increases the force before failure, but because it doesn't. The only force acting on the cap is that of the bolt or rivet heads kinetic energy, so even assuming it took no force to remove it from the plate, its detached mass drastically reduces shrapnel effect. But it IS attached, and its not hardened, so it will be torn free and deformed by the impact, absorbing more energy yet again. So why don't we see more welded caps? Because they spanned a limited period where welding was widely available as to be used in the design, but also not thought suited for the entire armor plate.

[@jimcronin2043]

@@SheepInACart Thanks for your reply. I learned something.

[@6mm250]

Instead of welding a cap over the nut I wonder why they didn't just weld the nut to that backing plate after it was assembled ?

[@joes8087]

maybe you can talk about the 2 times us battleships went against other battleships

[@scottrseeger85]

Wish we could ask anyone from the South Dakota during the 2nd naval battle of Guadalcanal how the nuts held up

[@eddielane9569]

I believe the caps were necessary as a preventive measure in the event a torpedo strike to the battleship would have caused the nuts to come loose and kill Sailors birthed in that area. Better safe than sorry.

[@franzfanz]

Could it be that the cap or no cap is more related to how likely a guy was to wang a part of their bod,y against it? I mean, the bolts on Texas are uncapped and they were originally in the coal bunkers then it's unlikely sailors would be in there often enough to injure themselves. Iowa on the other hand as an all oil fired ship, used those spaces for offices, berthing, storage etc... from design through construction and service so would have seen more sailors inside those spaces so more of a need to add a safety feature to prevent lacerations against the sharp edges of the bolts and nuts.

[@CapitanoAraym]

As for sure some bolt caps could have helped in case of a partial sheared one, as it was mentioned that on the Iowas those were "living spaces", or in any case compartments with a lot more sailors going in and out than Texas coal bunkers, I immediately thought too about the use of those caps more as protection to avoid to leave in the open artifacts with a lot of sharp edges that could create an injury by bumping on it, rather than an active measure against the spalling of the bolt itself in case of an external shell impact... ... just by the simple thought that if such of an impact had enough force to break the bolt and sent it flying, it could very easily send off flying the above welded cap together it. even creating more dangerous flying debries.

[@BlindMansRevenge2002]

Everything about the USS Texas is fine! Now, let’s go find the grand fleet or maybe the high seas fleet! The texes will ensure that something goes wrong with their bloody ships!

[@AhsokaTano-M.J.T.G-]

He had to make that joke he had to make a joke

[@williamromine5715]

If the ship got hit hard enough to fracture a harden bolt that thick, the safety cap is going to be just another piece of shrapnel flying around.

[@Ensign_Nemo]

The USS South Dakota was heavily damaged in the battle off of the island of Guadalcanal, including three hits from the 14 inch guns of the IJN Kirishima. Then the USS Washington opened fire, and soon the Kirishima was burning and sinking.