Talk:List of ships of the United States Army/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed merge

That after combining the hospital ships with the transport ships, the article name is changed to List of United States Army ships. There could be a separate section each for transport or hospital ships. --Brad (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you and I seem to be the main contributors to this lately, I'm completely OK with a single list as you proposed, Brad. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I forgot about Army tugboats. Apparently the designation LT-xxx means tugboat and I suppose USAT could just as easily mean tugboat rather than transport. I'll start combining the lists in a few days. --Brad (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No, tugs were LT, ST with many unnumbered without any such designation. "USAT" was U.S. Army Transport and did not include other types and functions. For example, the FS type of small coastal transport were not officially named until after the war and I have only seen "USAT" applied to them in poorly researched web references. Those ships would be simply FS XXX. David H. Grover's U.S. Army ships and Watercraft of World War II is the best overview of the Army's vessels of the period. Update/clarification: As with so much of the Army ship "problem" some of the FP/FS vessels acquired from commerce retained or were given actual names.Palmeira (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The nomenclature on the page has severe problems. "U.S. Army Transport (USAT)" applied only to the Army transports, the larger troop ships and cargo ships. That designation did not apply to tugs, cable ships (ACS), mine vessels and a number of other service types. Even smaller transport types, the FS, were not designated USAT. I also have to point out a complete list is a monumental task. The Army had more ships, even more tonnage, than Navy during WW II. They are not nearly as well documented as the Army pretty much destroyed ship records when it lost the battle to keep its big ships with the creation of DoD. I have Grover's U.S. Army ships and Watercraft of World War II and extensive research of my own. I can help and share information but a full list is something I shudder to think about! Palmeira (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see the hospital ships interspersed with the transports/other ships. Is this a temporary thing or did I misunderstand the merge proposal? — Bellhalla (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Was temporary but now I've messed the list around again..Will work on things today. --Brad (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Rethinking per MOS on the article rename, it should be: List of ships of the United States Army and afterwards there are a lot of links from templates pointing to List of United States Army transport ships so those links would have to be worked on to avoid the redirect etc. --Brad (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I much preferred the original suggested name of List of United States Army ships. Compare with List of United States Navy ships (and all of its subpages). — Bellhalla (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that List of United States Army ships reads easier than what I moved it to but I'm trying to adhere to MOS and that also means the List of United States Navy ships and all those under it are actually out of the MOS. Likely they were created long before the current guidelines were made. --Brad (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for suggestions about this at WT:SHIPS#Opinions wanted on United States Army ship article merge — Bellhalla (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

is there a reason that these army vessels are USAT instead of USAV? at least for the logistic support vessels,USAV MG Charles P. Gross and USAV CW3 Harold C. Clinger, (the latter is not mentioned)it is designated as USAV. just wondering12.187.195.2 (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC) frey

Yes, U.S. Army Transport was the pre-DoD designation of the large Army troop and cargo transports. A very few large vessels remained with the Army after the mass transfer of Army assets to Navy's new Military Sea Transportation Service in 1950. Those vessels, crewed on the Army model by civilians, became the U.S. Naval Ship (USNS) of MSTS (now Military Sealift Commad (MSC)) and the very few remaining Army ships were subsequently designated the equivalent USAV. Palmeira (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomenclature

I'm not paying as much attention to this article as I was previously. I'm sure that some of the nomenclature is inaccurate but the majority of the information we had was coming from DANFS when an army ship happened to cross over into navy service. If Palmeira would like to update and improve the accuracy it would be a great thing. Need to keep in mind that English Wikipedia has articles about ships from many different countries so it's important to identify the nationality of a ship in the article title. We have had to occasionally invent a prefix for a ship that may not have been entirely militarily correct but necessary for sorting on wikipedia. --Brad (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

To tell the truth I wonder if a "list" is really something to undertake here. The numbers are pretty overwhelming. I have done pretty extensive research on these things in archives and elsewhere and with one or two exceptions decided getting down into individual ships would be a lifetime task even though David Grover had done the overall survey--and David had problems with lost records. I myself have limited detailed Army ship research into cable ships, mine planters and a lesser extent into the FS coastal freighters (Google "Army FP/FS Vessels" and glance at "Why an FS page?"). I have a draft for the cable ships about ready. There again we are only talking about a handful of ships. What would you think of a major revision getting away from a list and into an overview of the general categories--and there are lots of those--with a few examples of individual ships? There is a great deal of confusion about those among people searching for "dad or granddad's service" and among people more familiar with the much more rigid U.S. Navy's ship "classifications." That might be more helpful to people than trying to just list what we could of some 14,044 vessels that are often almost lost in records. Before getting into such a revision that I might actually undertake I'd like to get the thoughts of those starting the page. As for nomenclature itself I have a problem with the Wikipedia "no original research" directive as the published nomenclature often causes confusion. I myself keep finding oddities. Still, I have enougn independent cites to clarify a great deal. If you have any interest in talking off line go to the bottom of what you get on Google above and drop a line. Palmeira (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The only reason for this list was apparently to provide a cross-reference for US Navy ships that also did Army service and vice-versa; and also articles that already existed on WP. This list was started long before I came around. I notice you found List of World War II vessel types of the United States and added some information there. You probably noticed that there is no article covering United States Army Ship which I think you could develop into an article that explains all of the different types and their functions. Maybe Ships of the United States Army would make a better title. Some of the information you added here could likely be moved to that new article. As far as this list is concerned, I'm not exactly sure what the intentions were or if the people who started it realized how many ships there really were. However, this list isn't hurting anything by staying here whether it gets completed or not. --Brad (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Any attempt to cover the U.S. Army's fleet is a book length subject, several books in fact. For someone trying to get a grasp of the thing, tracing family history, historical reference or such, an overview article would probably be more helpful. The high level cross linking needs to be at the existing Quartermaster Corps, Transportation Corps (operators) and the Army ships overview. That in turn could be linked to some existing or new articles. For example, the current U.S. Army Coast Artillery Corps is silent on the role of mines and these ships. The mine article covers the better known and entirely different sea/contact/influence mine and so on. Those could be beefed up along with the others touched by Army ships. Then this list could revert back to being something more likely than being a monumental complete index of Army ships. I am familiar with the ships and researching ships but new to Wikipedia for a serious project. I could certainly use your help and advice in trying to do this. Palmeira (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Most people are probably not even aware that the US Army operated its own ships. Ships of the United States Army would be a good article title to present an overview and explain the operations. --Brad (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. Most people during WW II were unaware. An article I found in NARA (Achives) noted that the general public was often surprised to find that "Navy ship" was an Army ship. I have also received e-mail from Army people transported overseas that were surprised to find they were on an Army transport. When you are loaded on a big ship at night, kept like sardines below decks it is not hard to understand. I am slowly working toward that on this page because a true "list" of the Army ships anywhere near complete is just beyond reason here. I am thinking in terms of overview, category overviews and a sample list for the large groups. That should help people that run across a mention of "Army ship" in old papers or references. Some of the smaller categories we could do a list. The Mine Planter list is complete--even going a bit beyond with two ships that were not MP but did plant mines, lay cable and inspire the second generation MPs. Cable ships are easy and I have them all now. I have a major revision of the "list" to remove the types that were not U.S.A.T. (FS/Tugs in particular) and begin those major categories. There were around 500 FS and "thousands" of tugs so you can see the list problem just there. Today off and on I have been getting the Army mine defenses issues somewhat resolved as background for the USAMPS.--Palmeira (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Intro problems

The present intro starts off like it's going to be a book review. Also this page is growing into an article more than a list. At a minimum the intro needs reworking so that the book is mentioned in passing or as a cite. Probably this should be split into an article and a list. --J Clear (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

An even reasonably complete list would be book length. So, the issue is a list that is vastly incomplete and a joke or a list of over 14,000 entries. The cited book is the authority on the ships themselves--essentially a list with huge tables and background paragraphs. The cited numbers show the scope of the fleet any list would have to deal with. If this is going to be a complete we would in fact almost duplicate the book. That is neither feasible nor encyclopedic. The discussion above your new section deals with the possibility of a set of "introductions" to categories of Army ships with a sample listing except in the small categories such as those just added--and except for the few "communications" ships those are the last of the small categories. Those might then be broken into separate articles with a general fully linked coverage of the Army's operation of the fleet. That to me seems the way to avoid a "Stub" list and turn this into something useful. I would be interested in your suggestions, taking the scope of such a "list" into consideration, about how to get off that hook if you do not like the way this is headed. It is a problem as is any attempt to simply list things that involve very large numbers of things--and remember there are about Army 4,343 tugs alone (as Australian built ones are not included). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmeira (talk • contribs) 04:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What I've been suggesting from the beginning is that what you're adding here should go to Ships of the United States Army and this list can be left to sit here in whatever condition it was in. J Clear also has a point about the tone of your additions. They need to be less of a first person description or a book review. --Brad (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with J Clear and you about the "book review" slant and will fix that shortly. The numbers should be kept so that no one stumbling on such a list thinks it is anywhere near complete (or will be complete). The approach I was taking would have eventually split off those sections into groups under the article you are suggesting. The existing stub of an incorrectly sorted list is a place holder. Among the problems with a complete list is the fact that the cited book is the only really comprehensive listing of the ships and short of doing the archival research done for the book one has to use it and infringe the copyright. Any complete list would also have to get into the complexity of the WSA allocations and Army bare boat charters vs. Army owned hulls. There is apparently no single public domain "list" someone could use. Thus, in my opinion, there should be no list with a title indicating it is or intended to be a "List of ships of the United States Army" at all. The title needs changing showing the limited scope within the practical or the "list" needs to be deleted in favor of some other format. If, as you noted, the list is bounded by those ships transferring from Army to Navy that is within reason as there are such lists in public records. --Palmeira (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with allowing this list to remain. There are already disclaimers on it relating that the list is not complete. There are quite a few Army ships that have been cross referenced to articles on the ship when it was in US Navy service. You can simply leave a small introduction to this article which relates how difficult it would be to compile a complete list. There are complete listings of US Navy ships already completed so saying that completing this list is impossible is not exactly correct. --Brad (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Navy has an entire branch within what is now Naval Historical and Heritage Command, formerly Naval Historical Center, that has done nothing since WW I except keep track of Navy ships. They publish the public domain DANFS (and are updating the digital version now) and have kept an official NVR even longer. What is fact, not speculation, is that Army destroyed most of its ship records with a real destruction undertaken when it lost its major blue water function in 1950. Some of the best documentation is what Navy did when the ship came into a ship oriented service. One of the CMH Army researchers at Ft. McNair put it well: The Army at the time considered its vessels no more important to document individually than it die its trucks. I am glad to see Army has changed its mind with its modern fleet. So comparing Navy lists with Army list is apples and cabbages. I did not say completing this list is "impossible"--if one is inclined to do the months of research in what original records remain exactly as Grover did. Just using his data as the list is a probable copyright violation because his work did involve specialized research rather than simply obtaining an official list. Then we would most probably have to conclude, as did he, "the list of Army vessels in this book is incomplete, and probably will always be so"--unless there is a "lost" AVR of the time somewhere in NARA. --Palmeira (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Title U.S. Army Sea Tales

Author Master Sergeant Walter L. Grey Jr

Publisher Xlibris Corporation, 2010

ISBN 1453549730, 9781453549735

Google Books x2mLODy4-5YC

• Title Between the Lines of World War II: Twenty-One Remarkable People and Events

Chapter 10 "More ships then the navy"

Author Paul M. Edwards

Publisher McFarland, 2010

ISBN 0786446676, 9780786446674

Google Books zaXnzYGuo_4C

• Title Over seas: U.S. Army maritime operations 1898 through the fall of the Philippines

Authors Charles Dana Gibson, E. Kay Gibson

Publisher Ensign Press, 2002

ISBN 0960899669, 9780960899661

Google Books iuc9AQAAIAAJ

• Title Index to Contemporary Military Articles of the World War II Era

Chapter UNITED STATES. ARMY - MARITIME OPERATIONS

Author Benjamin R. Beede

Publisher Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004

ISBN 0313313628, 9780313313622

Google Books cQEpoku4vyUC

• Title U.S. Army ships and watercraft of World War II

Author David Hubert Grover

Publisher Naval Institute Press, 1987

ISBN 0870217666, 9780870217661

Google Books qaQgAAAAMAAJ

• Volume No.3of3 Amphibious Operations in the South Pacific in World War II

Title Pacific Express: The Critical Role of Military Logistics in World War II

Chapter U.S. Army and civilian (civil service) Transportation Corps personnel who operated most of the Army’s large and small vessels

Author Sandra V. (CON) McGee

Publisher Bmc Publications, 2009

ISBN 0970167881, 9780970167880

Google Books zYFFLgEACAAJ

• Title Forgotten Fleet 2: An Updated and Expanded History of the Part Played by Australian Men and Ships in the US Army Small Ships Section in New Guinea 1942-45

Authors Bill Lunney, Ruth Lunney

Publisher Forfleet Publishing, 2004

ISBN 0975168304, 9780975168301

Google Books l2ngAAAACAAJ

• Title The Raggle Taggle Fleet

Author Ladislaw Reday

Publisher Flint, Ernest A, 2004

ISBN 0646440217, 9780646440217

Google Books wp6EAAAACAAJ

• Title Ships for Victory: A History of Shipbuilding under the U.S. Maritime Commission in World War II Ships for Victory

Author Frederic Chapin Lane

Publisher JHU Press, 2001

ISBN 0801867525, 9780801867521

Google Books PxlXegsimNcC

• Title The US Home Front 1941-45

Chapter The Maritime Services

Author Alejandro Quesada

Publisher Osprey Publishing, 2008

ISBN 1846032083, 9781846032080

Google Books Y8Eyms3ZGbEC

• Title Seaborne CPs: An Official History of the Southwest Pacific Area Signal Corps' Command Post Fleet

Author United States. Army. Signal Corps

Publisher The Corps, 1945

Google Books sX_zHAAACAAJ

• Title FS's, the Little Ships that Could: A History of the Campaigns in the Pacific and the Personal Experiences of the Author on the U.S. Army FS-268

Author George P. Alton

Publisher G.P. Alton, 2000

Google Books td0iHAAACAAJ

• Title Alaska at War, 1941-1945: The Forgotten War Remembered

Editor Fern Chandonnet

Publisher University of Alaska Press, 2007

ISBN 1602230137, 9781602230132

Google Books p01bFVagOJYC

• Title Army Service Forces Annual Reports for the Fiscal Years 1943-1945

Author United States. Army Service Forces

Publisher U.S. Government Printing Office, 1943-1945

HathiTrust Digital Library

• Title The Coast Guard at War: Transports and escorts.

US Coast Guard. Historical Section, Public Information Division,

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters. Washington:1949. D773.A34 v.5 pt.2.

1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.143.208.248 (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.27.17 (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.207.37 (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.204.225 (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.154.69 (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

SWPA

THE WAR DEPARTMENT: "GLOBAL LOGISTICS AND STRATEGY 1940-1943"

by Richard M. Leighton, Robert W. Coakley, 1955. p.407 Landing Craft and Intratheater Transport As the shape of warfare in the Pacific unfolded, it revealed an imperative need for all forms of water transport —landing craft for assault on hostile shores, ocean-going vessels for movement of supplies from rear to forward bases, and small craft of various sorts for short hauls along the coast and between islands. Lacking developed ports, each island base also required, in addition to barges, its complement of other types of small vessels and floating equipment. In SWPA the shortage was so acute that it posed a limitation on all operations. MacArthur cabled the War Department on 17 October 1942: I am greatly hampered by the total lack of light shipping, landing boats and barges which I have previously requested. In their absence I am moving overland by air. Supply is the controlling factor and must be accomplished by native carrier and by air. Improvised landing fields have been and are being prepared. . . . Supply difficulties are incredible and limit speed of movement and size of forces and [these supply difficulties] are of course multiplied by lack of shipping and shortage of transport planes. { (1) See msg, CINCSWPA to AGWAR, 17 Oct 42, CM-IN 07247. The undecipherable part of this message was repeated in msg, CINCSWPA to AGWAR, 18 Oct 42, CM-IN 07523. (2) See also, Milner, Victory in Papua, Chs. VIII, XI. } MacArthur had also requested large vessels to move troops and supplies from one port to another in Australia and from Australia to New Guinea. Again he was told that he must rely on local resources. These were meager enough, for all available Australian vessels were being used for domestic needs. MacArthur's main resources during the New Guinea Campaign consisted of twenty-one Dutch vessels that had escaped capture after the fall of the Netherlands Indies, three vessels of Chinese registry, and one of Siamese. These he supplemented, despite vigorous protests from WSA, by retaining Liberty ships arriving in the theater from the States. Meanwhile, he continued to press Washington for a larger allotment of shipping. In addition to large vessels, there was a pressing need in SWPA for a wide variety of small ships and craft, ranging from native canoes to vessels of nearly one thousand gross tons. In 1942 ocean-going vessels could not proceed along the north coast of New Guinea beyond Milne Bay. Cargo and personnel had to be trans-shipped at Port Moresby or Milne Bay to a miscellaneous collection of trawlers, schooners, luggers, and ketches, largely procured from Australian sources. To supplement these, a program of construction under reverse lend-lease was begun in Australia in September 1942. These measures, too, fell short of the need, and MacArthur had to place requirements on the United States for additional small vessels. Procurement of both large and small vessels in the United States was slow. They were not a normal item of Army supply. A procurement program for small vessels was inaugurated early in 1943, but the placing of orders was late and there were few deliveries before midyear. Meanwhile, the only large vessels available were steamers diverted from commercial trades on the Great Lakes. Though old and constantly in need of repair, they were made to serve. Gradually, from January 1943 onward, the local fleet at MacArthur's disposal grew, but never to the point where it was not necessary to retain trans-pacific shipping in the theater. { (1) Masterson, Transportation in SWPA, pp. 317-80, contains a full treatment of the vessel problem in MacArthur's command. (2) Bykofsky and Larson, Trans III, Ch. VIII. (3) Memo cited n. 34. }

• American crews

By the spring and summer of 1943, the Army was becoming increasingly short of not only boats, but crews, to supply MacArthur. Thus U.S. boatmen and mariners were recruited as civilian contract employees in the Army's Small Ships Branch of its Transportation Corps. Although the precise number is unknown, many Coast Guard Auxiliarists also signed up to be part of these desperately needed crews in the South West Pacific Area. In total approximately 1,300 boatmen, mariners and auxiliarists served in MacArthur’s Navy.

—Larson, C. Kay. “MacArthur’s Navy,” Coast Guard, December 1999; [www.auxpa.org/auxhistory]. Text articles. ...

—Larson, C. Kay. “Bravo Zero: The Coast Guard Auxiliary in World War II.” [www.auxpa.org/auxhistory]. Text articles. ...

• Australian crews

In 1943 there was a severe shortage of crews for service in the US Army Small Ships Unit, so the Australian Government allowed the Small Ships to run a training school of one-months duration, for 15 year old boys, who were then sent to New Guinea to man vessels in the combat area. Additionally Australian men too old or medically unfit for service in the Australian Military Forces and who had also been released by the Australian Manpower authorities were eagerly employed. Thus the crew ages ranged from 15 to over 70 years of age and with men with one arm and in one or two cases, one leg.

—The US Army Small Ships Association Website

1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.23.59 (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Transportation Corps

FINAL REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF TRANSPORTATION

Final Report by Gen Gross, Nov 45 (hereafter cited as Gross Final Rpt) p.72 Small Boats In December 1940, the Army had 386 small boats for harbor and interisland service in the zone of interior and at the oversea bases. By the end of the war this number had been increased to 12,466 vessels, through the acquisition of some old craft and the large construction program which the Transportation Corps carried out. Among the 12,466 small boats and other items of floating equipment listed by the Water Division as of 1 August 1945. the following were the more numerous: Barges 4,597 Launches 2,676 Tow launches 1,065 Marine tractors 1,113 Tugs 746 Rescue boats 499 Freight supply boats 510 Floating cranes 302 Dories 201 Lighters 247 Tankers (Y class) 104 Barges (self-propelled) 145 p.78 Intratheater Shipping Large numbers of ocean-going merchant vessels were required steadily for intratheater use. In October 1944 the total number of such ships definitely assigned to the theaters for local operations was 340, of which 195 were in the Southwest Pacific, 136 in the European and Mediterranean theaters, and 9 in the South Pacific. That was the peak, and thereafter there was a gradual reduction. In the very beginning of the campaign northward from Australia it was evident that small boats for harbor, coastwise, and interisland use would be one of the greatest needs. A Small Ships Section was set up promptly in the transportation organization to deal with this problem. All available local vessels, including those which had been driven out of the East Indies, some still flying the Dutch flag, were acquired by charter or purchase. In the short coastwise movements which characterized the advance along the north coast of New Guinea, outriggers and other types of native craft were used in carrying forward supplies and small equipment. Heavy demands were made upon the Chief of Transportation, ASF, for craft of all descriptions ranging from supply vessels of almost 200-foot length to small offshore patrol boats. Arrangements were made for the construction of barges and other small craft in Australia and New Zealand. American manufacturers built engines and other equipment for installation in hulls which were being constructed in the Antipodes. p.108 Harbor Craft Companies Among the new types of units which the Transportation Corps was required to train were harbor craft companies, utilized to operate the Army's great fleet of small boats and other floating equipment which the war called into being. The heavy demand came first from the expansive Southwest Pacific area, where the United States forces were mainly reliant upon coastwise and interisland transportation. Since the military training program, which had to be built up from scratch, could not supply such units as rapidly as they were needed, Coast Guard personnel was used to man many of the vessels which required military crews, and civilian personnel was used on others. Altogether, 57 harbor boat companies were activated, 46 in the zone of interior and 11 overseas. They had a total authorized strength of 1,785 officers and 13,792 enlisted men.

THE COAST GUARD AT WAR: TRANSPORTS & ESCORTS

by Historical Section, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 1949. p.133 Manning of Army Vessels Under a Joint Chiefs of Staff Agreement signed March 14, 1944, the Coast Guard was designated to man certain small Army Transportation Corps vessels some already operating in the Southwest Pacific and manned at the time by civilians. "The Coast Guard," the agreement reads, "due to decrease in category of defense in the United States, will have some personnel available to man ships and craft for which civilian personnel cannot be obtained." Five categories of Army vessels were specified AMRS (Army Marine Repair Ship), TY (Tankers), LT (Large Tugs), FS (Freight and Supply Vessels) and F (Freight Vessels). The Coast Guard eventually manned 288 of these craft.

THE ARMY SERVICE FORCES: ORGANIZATION AND ROLE

by John D. Millet, 1954. p.256 Small Boat Construction In the field of small boat construction, the Army, Navy, and Maritime Commission each had its own program. The Army Transportation Corps purchased harbor craft and other vessels under one thousand gross tons or less than two hundred feet in length. It worked out informal agreements with groups interested in small boats on the apportionment of construction facilities among various contractors. p.261 Ship Conversions The joint Chiefs of Staff approved the conversion of various types of ships to troop transports. Conversion was a useful device in giving the ship program some of the flexibility required by the exigencies of war. Later, after troop lift demands were temporarily met, vessels were converted into hospital ships, repair ships, spare parts ships, and even a news ship. Smaller vessels became floating refrigerators, floating warehouses, and floating service shops of numerous varieties. Conversions were carried out by several agencies and by the armed services. {Final Report of Troopship Conversion Program, Sep 43 Jan 46, prepared by Maint and Rep Br, 30 Jan 46, OCT, HB, Water Div, Ship Rep and Conversion}

THE TRANSPORTATION CORPS: RESPONSIBILITIES, ORGANIZATION, AND OPERATIONS

by Chester Wardlow, 1951. p.249 Assignment and Operation of Small Boats The Army required small boats and other floating equipment for many purposes. The types with which the Chief of Transportation was concerned included; mine laying and target vessels for the Coast Artillery Corps. rescue and airplane retrieving vessels for the Army Air Forces. tugs, barges, patrol boats, passenger and cargo vessels for coastwise and interisland service. tugs, barges, lighters, floating cranes, fireboats, launches, marine tractors, and dories for harbor use. These units were under 1,000 gross tonnage and 200 feet length; they included both self-propelled and non-propelled types. As a class they were known as "small boats"; sometimes they were referred to as "harbor boats," but that designation was not accurate, since many types were built expressly for coastwise and interisland service. { AR 55-510, par. 1, 9 Oct 42, sub: Harbor Boat Service. General characteristics of vessels shown in Report of Army Small Boat Construction, 1 July 40 to 31 May 45, issued by WD, 18 Dec 45, in OCT HB Water Div Small Boats. See also Critchell Rimington, "The Army's Navy," Yachting (March 1943).} p.299 Ship Conversions One cargo ship was converted into a news transmission ship, to be utilized in connection with the invasion of Japan. Ten cargo ships were converted into engineer port repair ships, to be utilized by the Corps of Engineers in rehabilitating devastated port facilities overseas. Six cargo ships were converted into aircraft repair ships, to be operated by the Army Air Forces in forward areas where there were not adequate shore facilities for servicing damaged aircraft. Six cargo ships were converted into marine repair ships, to be operated by the Transportation Corps in the Pacific where there were not sufficient shore facilities for the repair of floating equipment. Seven cargo vessels were converted to spare parts depot ships to facilitate the maintenance of military equipment in oversea areas. three to be utilized by the Ordnance Department, two by the Transportation Corps, one by the Corps of Engineers, and one jointly by the Chemical Warfare Service, the Signal Corps, and the Medical Corps. In addition to the above oceangoing vessels, numerous smaller boats and barges were converted to provide floating refrigeration facilities, floating warehouses, floating maintenance shops, and training vessels for oversea use. {Annual Rpt Water Div OCT FY 1945, OCT HB Water Div Rpts; Memo, Maintenance and Repair By Water Div OCT for Hist Unit OCT, 14 Jun 45; List, Status of Hospital Ships, prepared in Water Div, 3 Jul 45; Comment 2, G. A. Anthony to C. C. Wardlow, 22 Sep 48. Last three in OCT HB Water Div Ship Repair and Conv. } p.426 Historical Branch Monographs All but two unnumbered monographs were prepared during the years 1943-46 by members of the Historical Branch, Office of the Chief of Transportation, as part of the wartime historical program of the Army Service Forces. They are in the nature of interim reports based on information then available. In many respects the sources of information were inadequate at the time the monographs were written, but in other respects they present useful historical data. The two unnumbered monographs, entitled U.S. Army Transportation in the Southwest Pacific Area, 1941-1947, and History of Transportation Service in China, Burma, and India in World War II, were written in 1949 and 1950, respectively. The authors had access to much more complete records than did the authors of the wartime monographs. The "Gross Final Report" was prepared in November 1945, at the end of General Gross's tour of duty as Chief of Transportation. It was carefully reviewed by him before publication and may be taken as a responsible expression of his views on many of the problems which confronted his office. 1. The Transportation Advisory Group in the Office of the Quartermaster General, 1941-1942. 2. Organization and Activities of the Traffic Control Branch, Office of the Quartermaster General, 1941-1942. 3. Supervision of Transportation by the Supply Division of the War Department General Staff, 1940-1942. 4. Administration of Transportation in the United States Army, April 1917-March 1942. 5. Water Transportation for the United States Army, 1939-1942. 6. The Commercial Traffic Branch in the Office of the Quartermaster General, July 1940-March 1942. 7. Army Hospital Ships in World War II. 8. Expansion of Army Transportation Facilities in the Zone of the Interior, 1941-1944. 9. U.S. Army Transportation and the Conquest of North Africa, 1942-1943. 10. Operating Relationships of the Office of the Chief of Transportation with Civilian Government Agencies. 11. Transportation and the Greenland Bases, 1941-1944. 12. Troop Transports in World War II. 13. U.S. Army Transportation and the Conquest of Sicily, 1943. 14. Transportation of the U.S. Forces in the Occupation of Iceland, 1941-1944. 15. The Army-Navy Consolidated Car Service, 1942-1945. 16. Army Transportation Zones in the Second World War. 17. U.S. Army Transportation and the Italian Campaign. 18. The Army's Cargo Fleet in World War II. 19. Handling Army Cargo in the Second World War. 20. Inland Transportation of Individuals for the Army During World War II. 21. Negotiation of Rates and Services for Inland Army Passenger Travel During World War II. 22. Inland Movement of Troops in Organized Parties During World War II. 23. Control of Port-bound Freight During World War II. 24. Inland Freight Routing Practices of the Army in World War II. 25. U.S. Army Transportation in the Persian Corridor, 1941-1945. 26. The Military Training Program of the Transportation Corps in World War II. 27. Role of the Transportation Corps in Oversea Supply. 28. Supply Program and Operations of the Transportation Corps in World War II. 29. U.S. Army Transportation in the European Theater of Operations, 1942-1945. 30. The Army's Overseas Passenger Traffic in World War II.

1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.190.20.67 (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

WSA

THE ARMY SERVICE FORCES: ORGANIZATION AND ROLE

by John D. Millet, 1954. p.255 War Shipping Administration On 7 February 1942 the President, following the suggestion of his advisers, established a War Shipping Administration. By and large, the limitations with which General Somervell wished to circumscribe the new agency were omitted and broad powers were granted to the administrator. In essence, the civilian WSA held final and exclusive power over shipping allocations, subject to a vague qualification that the administrator would "comply" with strategic and military requirements. Despite the fact that his suggested limitation on the authority of the agency was not adopted, General Somervell achieved his main objective, a unified and centrally directed program for the allocation of ships. The administrator of the WSA directed the operation, purchase, charter, requisition, and use of all American-controlled ocean-going vessels except combat vessels and transports of the Army and Navy, and coastwise traffic under the control of the Office of Defense Transportation. The administrator also allocated United States ships for use by the Army, Navy, other federal agencies, and governments of the United Nations. In addition, he represented the United States in dealing with the British Ministry of War Transport, kept current data on shipping, and informed the President on the shipping situation. He also collaborated with all military and civilian agencies performing wartime functions connected with overseas transport. After the creation of the War Shipping Administration, Somervell negotiated an understanding with the new agency on operating relationships in the use of ships. The Navy had previously made an agreement with the WSA, and General Somervell, on behalf of the Army, worked out a similar arrangement with Mr. Lewis W. Douglas, deputy administrator of the shipping agency. A modus operandi was signed on 13 June 1942. This agreement provided that the Army Transportation Corps would operate vessels owned by the War Department but would keep the WSA fully informed on the use of this tonnage. Since Army-owned ships would barely begin to meet Army needs, the WSA was to assign to the Army the additional ocean-going vessels it required. These ships would be allotted on a voyage basis, and on the home trip, unless otherwise arranged, they would revert to the control of the WSA. Overseas commanders were permitted to retain cargo vessels in their own service if military emergencies demanded. The Army and the WSA also agreed to exchange information and maintain the closest possible liaison, both in Washington and at ports of embarkation. Each organization would furnish the other full information for planning the best possible use of ships. Finally, the two agencies agreed that each had no desire to absorb or control the functions of the other. p.261 The Army negotiated directly with the WSA on all matters involving privately operated vessels under WSA control. It dealt with the WSA when it wanted British cargo ships for Army service, but worked directly with the British Ministry of War Transport when it needed British troop ships. The two agencies agreed on regulations for carrying civilian passengers engaged in essential travel. On 28 January and 7 March 1944 the WSA, the Army, and the Navy reached agreements whereby they accepted each other's barges for towing when their tugs had free time. Detailed understandings were also arrived at with regard to financial procedures. An important field of co-operation was in matters of personnel. The Army Transportation Corps usually followed WSA procedures. It paid the prevailing wage rates including overtime and war bonuses. As far as practicable, it also followed established precedents on war risk insurance. The WSA used the overseas facilities of the War Department when it investigated and processed matters dealing with marine insurance. The Transportation Corps recruited crews for its own transports, but co-operated with the WSA in so doing. It also made its facilities available to the WSA for training officers for merchant crews. The Transportation Corps followed the forms and procedures of the WSA on deferments under the Selective Service Act, and the WSA personnel organization issued necessary re-employment certificates and handled negotiations with local draft boards. This catalogue of co-operation could be greatly extended. But enough has been said to indicate how extensive were the operating relationships between the ASF and the War Shipping Administration. In short, the WSA controlled the entire pool of cargo vessels coming under the jurisdiction of the United States Government. The Army received most of its cargo ships through the WSA and retained authority to operate them according to its judgment of military needs. Under this arrangement involving numerous points of interagency contact, there occasionally were misunderstandings, but it is noteworthy that these were so few in number.

US War Department and WSA MEMORANDUM
COVERING THE INTER-DEPARTMENTAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ARMY AND THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION
TO FORM A BASIS FOR FULL AND COMPLETE COOPERATION IN CONNECTION WITH
THE PURCHASE, CHARTER, USE AND OPERATION OF VESSELS AND TERMINAL FACILITIES

(1) The Army Transport Service shall operate its owned tonnage, keeping War Shipping Administration fully and promptly Informed of the intended employment of that tonnage so that it may "be, reckoned in and synchronized with the overall program, thereby avoiding duplicating waste of ship space. (2) All troop-carrying vessels for Army use shall "be assigned "by War Shipping Administration to Army and their operation shall "be handled "by the Army' through the existing operating organization, or otherwise as may be agreed upon, "but in conformity with the terms of existing charters and other agreements. (3) All freighters assigned to the Army shall be loaded by the Army Transport Service. (4) Subject to such minor adjustments and modifications as may be mutually agreed upon with the War Shipping Administration, all commercial piers and terminals now occupied by the Army shall remain with the Army for its use and such additional piers and terminals as may from time to time become necessary to carry out the strategic movements of the Army shall in the future similarly be placed under the control of the Army, provided, however, that such disposition does not unduly interfere with the moving, loading, unloading and storage of other essential cargo. Whenever these piers and terminals are not necessary for Army use they may be used for other than Army purposes by the War Shipping Administration. Similarly pier and terminals under the control of the War Shipping Administration will be made available for Army use whenever they are not required for the purposes of the War Shipping Administration. (5) a) Except in cases of emergency, War Shipping Administration shall be the sole contracting arm of the Army with respect to the purchase, charter or requisitioning of ocean-going vessels. b) War Shipping Administration and the Army agree to consult and advise with one another as to the purposes and terms of occupancy, financial consideration, rates and other terms and conditions before requisitioning, renting or purchasing piers and terminals. (6) Both in Washington and at ports of embarkation the closest possible liaison shall be maintained between Army Transport and War Shipping Administration so that cargo can be interchanged by mutual consent between vessels to secure close stowage and full and down loadings. (7) Beyond the capacity of its terminal facilities, the Army should utilize existing stevedoring organizations and terminals under Army supervision arrangements for such services to be in conformity with the rates of compensation and standard contract provisions of the War Shipping Administration. (8) Outside cargo shipped on Army vessels shall, if possible, be confined to large blocks of other governmental and Lend-Lease cargoes which can be handled without involving questions of unexpected diversion to meet military exigencies and undue complications in billing, freight collections, damage claims, etc. (9) Assignments (other than troopship assignments) "by War Shipping Administration to Army Transport shall "be on a voyage to voyage basis only, but made as far in advance as is practicable, thus to effect the greatest flexibility and therefore the greatest effectiveness in the use of the pools of shipping under American control and the control of the United Nations. (10) All assigned vessels except troopships should revert to War Shipping Administration upon completion of discharge of Army cargo and their homeward employment should be determined and controlled by War Shipping Administration. The theater commander, Army or Navy, may in emergencies temporarily retain such vessels as the military necessity demands. In such cases the War Shipping Administration will be promptly advised. (11) Subject to the requirements of the Army troop movement schedule whenever practical homeward employment of troop ships will be determined by War Shipping Administration. (12) With the same restriction and subject to priority for Army return cargo, the Army Transport shall place its own vessels at disposal of War Shipping Administration for carrying homeward cargo. (13) Where the Army takes over commercial terminal facilities, it shall whenever practicable, agree to use existing experienced contracting stevedores on a remuneration not exceeding that paid by War Shipping Administration for similar services. (14) Whenever practicable the Army shall take over the personnel operating those terminals, provided that such personnel will enter Army service or employment on proper terms. (15) Subject to necessary precautions for secrecy, the Army and War Shipping Administration shall exchange Information as to loadings, movements, etc., so that each agency will have the Information essential for planning an efficient operation. (16) The conversion and alteration of ships to fit them for troop carrying or other special conditions necessary for utilization by the Army, and including arming and degaussing, should be accomplished either by the War Shipping Administration or the Army, or the two agencies Jointly, in a manner that will best meet the requirements. Normally, work on vessels under bare-boat charter to the Army should be accomplished by the Army. Similarly, work on vessels under charter to the War Shipping Administration and allocated for Army use should be accomplished by the War Shipping Administration. Mutual assistance and cooperation in carrying out work is enjoined to the end that the necessary work will be completed in the most expeditious and economical manner. (17) The Army and War Shipping Administration will cooperate in arranging suitable modifications or amendments in the appropriations for each agency BO that the provisions of such appropriations will conform with this understanding. (18) The War Shipping Administration has no Intention or ambition to absorb the functions of the Army Transport Service, either by use of Its requisition powers or otherwise. Similarly, the Army Transport Service has no intention or ambition to achieve the complete control and operation of vessels by use of its requisition powers or otherwise, excepting always those owned by it or permanently assigned to it. Both the Army and War Shipping Administration agree that in connection with the requisition, rental or purchase of terminals each shall refrain from taking any action which would jeopardize the operations or requirements of the other agency. Approved: (signed) Brehon Somervell Lt. General Brehon Somervell (signed) L. W. Douglas L. W. Douglas, Deputy Administrator War Shipping Administration (Approved, June 13, 1942) {Operating relationships of the Office of the Chief of Transportation with civilian government agencies, January 1945, Wardlow, Monograph #10, pp.31-33.}

1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.190.20.67 (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.27.189 (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Buildup Prior to WWII

The United States and the Road to War in Europe: The American Experience in World War II

by Walter Hixson Google Books pkisc7s0PQIC p.92 Build up prior to the war During the eighteen months before Pearl Harbor. The United States Army ordered 475 vessels of various sizes and types, a large number of them from the underutilized Great Lakes yards. These included tugs. workboats. minefield tenders, harbor freighters, and a towboat from Sturgeon Bay Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company; workboats from Marine Iron & Shipbuilding; mine tenders and a barge from Calumet Shipyard & Dry Dock Company, Chicago; assault boats from Century Boat Company, Manistee: utility boats from Chris-Craft Corporation, Algonac; sounding skiffs from Campbell Boat Company, Holland; and harbor tugs from "Lealhum D. Smith Coal & Shipbuilding Company". { Charles H. Coleman, Shipbuildiug Activities of the National Defense Advisory Commission and Office of Production Management. July 1940 to December 1941 (Washington: Civilian Poduction Administration, 1946), 19. M.F.&.S.R., XLV-XLVI (1940-41), passim. } —Issue 18 of Historical reports on war administration Title Shipbuilding Activities of the National Defense Advisory Commission and Office of Production Management, July 1940 to December 1941 Historical reports on war administration : War Production Board: Special study Author Charles Hubert Coleman Publisher Civilian Production Administration, Bureau of Demobilization, 1946 Google Books 0vQ7OwAACAAJ

1. 98.23.21.74 (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)