EXPLOSION IN TURRET TWO
Investigation Continued

Further Considerations

48.       Then filled, NEWPORT NEWS 8” powder hoists constitute vulnerable and dangerous paths for the propagation of high-energy flame direct from the gun chamber to the powder handling room, at magazine level below the armor deck.  Nearly a ton of powder could become involved in the hoists of each turret.  The initiating flame could originate either with a casualty, as in this instance, or by enemy action.  There is an automatically-actuated sprinkling system in these turrets which includes branches inside the powder hoists.  Apparently the system actuated as intended in this casualty.  But such systems do not have the capacity to extinguish powder fires once started, and because of both limited capacity and relatively slow response times, we would not judge that the hoist sprinklers were or could be factors in preventing flame propagation in the hoists under circumstances such as found in this case.  The loading scuttles at the lower ends of the hoists would provide no protection from further flame propagation if the hoists themselves ruptured within the handling room, as they did in this casualty in the spaces above the handling room.

49.       Thus one can only speculate on how close this casualty came to extending into a magazine.  If it did, survival of the ship itself would be speculative.  The powder hoists should be modified to incorporate at least one flame barrier in each hoist, perhaps at the pan plate level.  As a minimum safety factor this barrier should open automatically for each hoist movement, but remain closed during the hoist’s stationary intervals.

50.       Similar flame propagation paths also exist in the powder hoists of the 5”/54 rapid fire mounts and 6”/47 turrets.  Corresponding safety features should be added to those hoists.

51.       Paragraph 22 describes the slow salvo fire procedure in use in NEWPORT NEWS.  That procedure was not a factor in this casualty, but nevertheless we consider it should be modified as here described.  We consider that in slow salvo fire the gun controls should be so disposed that after each shot the gun would be left with breech open; successive loads for each shot would then be made only on control’s command, given separately for each shot, at an appropriate interval before each intention to fire a salvo.  This would improve gun cooling between rounds because of the open bore; it would reduce the likelihood of cook-offs due to unexpected interruptions of firing; and it would enhance fire discipline in general.

52.       Comparable procedure considerations concerning standing by with breech open between shots in slow salvo fire apply to all other naval guns for which this is not already the doctrine.

            (page 17)