|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Mar 7, 2018 13:06:49 GMT -7
I have always loved the study of the Atlantic War, and how one type of ship saved the entire allied war effort. a ship that was built in yards all across North America. A very lightly armed vessel in terms of weapons, but in reality a ship that came at the right time. The irony is that in a war of the 20thn Century, a product of late 19th century technology would come to the rescue. The result of this was what Franklin D. Roosevelt called an Ugly Duckling. I am talking about the EC-2 "Liberty" ship. These ships would be that "bridge to Europe" with over 2,700 hulls completed. These ships dated back to an English design that dates back to the 1890's. Where the modern designed freighters of similar size using steam turbines or diesel engines; these new "old" ships were powered by an engine that was easy to produce, easy to maintain and cheap to use in the form of the VTE (Vertical Triple expansion) steam plant that produced only 2,500 hp for a speed of 12 knots. The thing turned like a covered wagon. But, all the things that made this design what it was also made her cheap to produce at less then $2 million, and they could be built on 60 days. This meant that production out paced losses. This kept the line of supply open. The irony is that the Liberty ships could carry more cargo then the modern ships of similar size. The standard US Maritime Commission ships of the C-2 type could carry on the average of 5,800 GRT (gross registry tonnage this is based on 1 tone = 100 cubic feet of area that can be used for revenue making cargo), while the ugly duckling could carry 6,250 GRT. Not only were more ships being built, but more capacity of supplies could be moved and processed. If it hadn't been for the effectiveness of the U-boat, this Ugly Duckling would have remained a blue print long forgotten, but instead it became the lifeline of the Allied war effort.  The Ugly Duckling It is amazing the twists of fate that history can produce. |
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Mar 7, 2018 14:36:53 GMT -7
Blew up plenty of those in "silent service"
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Mar 7, 2018 17:06:56 GMT -7
Ah - but that's the whole problem. There were ALWAYS more Liberty (and later "Victory") ships coming out of yards than the Kreigsmarine could sink...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 18:29:23 GMT -7
And more bombers than the Luftwaffe could shoot down.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Mar 7, 2018 20:26:58 GMT -7
Ah - but that's the whole problem. There were ALWAYS more Liberty (and later "Victory") ships coming out of yards than the Kreigsmarine could sink... Oh yes, the Victory Ship program was a natural progression to the EC-2 Liberty ships. The VC-2 Victory freighter was a natural evolution of the EC-2 type ships. The US Maritime Commission took all the best qualities the Liberty had to offer and brought it up to somewhat more modern standards. They took the deep hold concepts, the rapid prefabricated construction processes, and mixed it with more modern steam turbine propulsion. These modification included a slight enlargement of the hull that brought the cargo capacity to 6,500 GRT (some sources claim this is as high as 7,200 GRT, but most show 6,500 GRT). The turbine gave the ship, depending on the yard that built her, between 6,000 hp to 8,500 hp that made the ships faster (15 to 17 knots) and more maneuverable (the majority of the commercial ships, 272 VC2-S-AP2 using the 6,000 hp engine with the 141 VC2-S-AP3 using the stronger turbines). It should be pointed out that the USN took delivery of 117 Haskell class (VC2-S-AP5) attack transport variation with the 8,500 hp engines. MarCom also experimented with one diesel powered VC2-M-AP4 "engineering test" vessel. Even though the "emergency construction" produced nearly 3,500 hulls, we also can't forget about the close to 1,000 ships that were produced under the prewar Maritime Fleet Modernization program. Many of these C1, C2, C3 cargo ships would be converted for navy use. The US standard T2 tankers also came out of this prewar program. The Prewar program ships were also kept in production during the war, becasue they were thought to be more durable then the emergency construction ships. Apparently some on the Commission didn't have much faith in the rapid produced ships, but that said, the Liberty and Victory types were considered expendable, and only thought as a one way ship, because heavy losses were being expected. The irony is only a little over 200 of these emergency freighters were lost, and they proved tough enough to still being used up into the 1970's. Now you can count the surviving operating ships on one hand. There is no doubt that these ships were a good investment!!!! Side Note: A unique thing about the USMC ship building program, of the 1930's and the war years, was the fact that US Government maintained ownership of the ships and leased them out to American owned shipping companies. This was the case for most of the ships, except those that were requested variations of the standard designs, then the requesting company paid the bill for the construction. This meant that the standard ships were all built to the same plans. This had two benefits, the first being the ships could be more easily maintained and the crews could easily move between ships and companies. The second advantage: it helped keep production costs down. |
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Mar 7, 2018 22:10:01 GMT -7
I wonder if the US would be able to pull off building 4,000 merchant ships in nine years again, while also rebuilding a navy? This was really something special. It showed how America had the ability to out produce just about anyone. I don't think we have that ability anymore. You look at the numbers constructed and wonder if it was a maricle?
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Mar 8, 2018 9:06:15 GMT -7
Now? No way... The current (recent) government wouldn't know where to start. Plus, resources are harder to come by (iron - not to mention copper - is actually getting to be an issue, recycling is extremely important these days).
Getting companies (i.e. defense contractors) to buy in on a design they would not own and building to one design...? Good luck...
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Mar 8, 2018 11:27:22 GMT -7
Regardless of the time this program was implemented and achieved, this was one hell of an accomplishment. The numbers I am about to list only cover the general cargo and tankers. This doesn't include the Specials, like the Ashville and Tacoma class frigates, or the tug boats and passenger ships in the P series. During the war, MarCom also started construction of purpose built refers in the R series but these didn't enter service until after the war.
173 C1 (the small cargo ships of about 4550 GRT, length of 419 ft x beam of 60 ft, empty displacement of around 4,820 tons)
173 C2 (General cargo ships with a 5,800 GRT, and an empty displacement of 6,030 tons, 460x63)
465 C3 (General cargo ships with a 7,510 GRT, and an empty displacement of 7,700 tons, 492x70)
75 C4 (General cargo, troop ships, 523x72, i have no information on the GRT of the class)
2710 EC2 (General Cargo, Liberty Ships, with a 6,750 GRT, on an empty displacement of 6,520 tons, 442x57) to put this in prospective this GRT is the near equivalent of 300 boxcars of the era that you would find behind a locomotive.
534 VC2 (General Cargo, Victory Ships with a 7,100 GRT, on an empty displacement of 6,850 tons, 455x62)
536 T2 (Tanker with a 14,200 GRT on an empty displacement of 10,950 tons, 524x68) This was the main standard tanker of the MarCom design, and it was the most produced of the prewar modernization program.
65 T3 (Tankers, but all were converted for navy AO fleet oilers)
These programs produced 4,731 ocean going hulls, and as i said this total does not include the "P" series passenger ships, the "S" series specials, the postwar "R" series refers, or any of the many coastal types built to the standard designs.
and all this was completed between 1938 to 1947. What a program of industrial strength!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Mar 8, 2018 18:04:19 GMT -7
According to the Wiki on the C4 class: C4 Class - about 12,000 GRT - depending on variant. Just about everyone was more than pulling their weight back then. "Greatest Generation" indeed... |
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Mar 9, 2018 11:15:46 GMT -7
Looking back over this post and thinking about all these great old "tramps and tankers", i figured out what like about them. These things just a have a romance and beauty of their own.
IN our modern world of container ships and super tankers, the feel of the old "tramps" are gone. Now everything is to schedule on vessels that seem to have no real differences to the others of the types. They all just look so industrial. Gone are the elegant lines of the T2 tanker, gone are the king-posts of the Liberties and Victories.
These old ships even look like they have a personality of their own. That seems to be missing in the designs of today.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Mar 9, 2018 13:29:29 GMT -7
This thread made me remember "Away All Boats" from 1956...i thought that movie was a liberty ship but alas it's an APA. Still a good movie though. www.imdb.com/title/tt0048971/ |
|
|
|
Post by edgeworthy on Mar 9, 2018 16:29:45 GMT -7
This thread made me remember "Away All Boats" from 1956...i thought that movie was a liberty ship but alas it's an APA. Still a good movie though. www.imdb.com/title/tt0048971/The ship they used, USS Randall (APA-224), was built on the hull of a Victory Ship. The successors to the Liberty Ships. (It also has an un-credited Clint Eastwood!) |
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Apr 2, 2019 21:50:29 GMT -7
I have, what my girlfriend calls, an unhealthy fascination with these old ships, and that fact that during two World Wars the allies were able to put together standard ship building programs that kept the effects of the submarines at bay. IN both these wars civilian yards turned out thousands of these standard design ships.
Even the Germans knew the value of building to the same designs.
During World War II, most of the ships constructed were of steel hulled types, but during World War I, the standard designs were built from steel, wood and even concrete. Both these programs were extraordinary for their times.
Both standard programs were works of modern industrial warfare.
I still wonder if it cold be done twice in the 20th Century, why couldn't it be done now?
|
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Apr 3, 2019 6:31:28 GMT -7
I'm sure it could be done if the necessity arose. But, that is the key. Necessity. It takes quite a bit of motivation (usually in the form of a serious threat) for everyone to put aside their greed and petty squabbles and come together and do great things.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Apr 3, 2019 7:03:55 GMT -7
Even though these programs were wonders of their age, they did have some unseen side effects that followed the emergencies they were built to meet.
Following the first World War, the shipping industry had such a large number of ships surplussed that the ship builders couldn't compete with the availability of surplussed hulls. The US ship construction feel to such a low in orders that the great yards that built ships like the famous Design 1022 (Hog Islander Type A) freighters were forced into receivership and closed. Though the Pennsylvania Ship Building Company would come back in the 1930's as part of Bethlehem Steel. This was indicative of the situation across the Globe in the 1920's. The surplus actually lead to an industry recession.
Another sign of the recession was the cut throat shipping costs caused by the over abundance of ships in operation. Of course these ships were a result of the "Standard" program. Where during the Great War massive amounts of cargo were needing to be moved the large fleets were needed, but in peace time, well available shipping space was well in excess of demand and that lead to shipping revenue actually falling below operational costs of the ships.
Eventually these problems solved themselves over time. A lot of the war built shipping eventually became to old to operate, Companies cut back and scrapped even older ships still in service, and the slower war built ships gave way to more modern designs. Then with government help, the Yards started to recover and build these new designs that were being made. Government Bale outs aren't anything new...lol
The problem is this wold be repeated again following the Second World War, but this time the US and British governments saved a lot of the problems by ordering a lot of the WW2 ships held in reserve or if sold to companies the governments subsidized the operations of these ships, or actually continued to maintain ownership and lease them to the operators even after the War. One thing that helped stave off a recession in the industry was the fact that the US needed large numbers of ships to carry out its reconstruction of Europe and Asia following the war. This kept companies in business with government contracts for about 15 years following World War II.
Just some thoughts on the follow on effects of such build ups as made by the Standard ship building programs.
A piece of irony here is that a lot of the early tonnage lost, at the beginning of World War II, were ships constructed under the Great War's Standard programs. It just took nearly twenty years for the torpedoes to catch them!
|
|
