Title graphic

Notes

Abbreviations Used

Adm Admiral
AAM American Merchant Marine Museum, Kings Point, N.Y.
BasFor Base Force, U.S. Fleet
BatFlt Battle Fleet, U.S. Fleet
BatFor Battle Force, U.S. Fleet
BuAer Bureau of Aeronautics
BuC&R Bureau of Construction and Repair
BuEng Bureau of Engineering
BuNav Bureau of Navigation
BuOrd Bureau of Ordnance
BuShips Bureau of Ships
Capt Captain
Chf Chief
Chrmn Chairman
CinCBaFlt Commander in Chief, Battle Fleet
CinCUS Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet
Cdr Commander
ComPacFlt Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet
ComServLant Commander, Service Force, Atlantic Fleet
Conf Confidential
Corr Correspondence
DANFS Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships
Dir Director
FDRL Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, N.Y.
FTD Fleet Training Division, Office of the CNO
FY Fiscal Year
GB General Board
HC-NWC Historical Collection, Naval War College, Newport, R.I.
JAG Judge Advocate General
JASNE Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers
Land MS Emory Land Manuscript, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
LC Library of Congress
Lt Cdr Lieutenant Commander
Ltr letter
MARAD United States Maritime Administration
MarCom Unites States Maritime Commission

--287--


ME Marine Engineering International
ME&SR Marine Engineering and Shipping Review
NA National Archives, Washington, D.C.
NA-Suit National Archives, Suitland Reference Branch, Suitland, Md.
NHC Naval Historical Center
NIRA National industrial Recovery Administration
NWCR Naval War College Review
NYT New York Times
OpA-NHC Operational Archives Branch, Naval Historical Center, Washington Navy Yard
Rear Adm Rear Admiral
RG Record Group
SC Secret Correspondence Files
SciAm Scientific American
SecCom Secretary of Commerce
SecNav Secretary of the Navy
SecNavRrds Records of the Office of the Secretary of the Navy
SecNavReports Annual Report of the Secretary of the Navy (various fiscal years)
Sgnd Signed
Ships' Data Ship's Data U.S. Naval Vessels (various issues published between 1919-1945
SNAME Transactions, Society of Naval and Marine Engineers
URJ Underway Replenishment Journal
USNIP U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings
USSB United States Shipping Board, Dept. of Commerce
Vice Adm Vice Admiral
WPD War Plans Division, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations

 


Preface

1. Carter, Beans, Bullets, and Black Oil, 359.

2. Ibid. Total fuel consumption of the Fifth Fleet during the Okinawa campaign averaged 220,000 bbls per day requiring the total services of forty-seven fleet oilers and twenty merchant tankers.

3. Goralski and Freeburg, Oil and War, 248.

Introduction. Fuel and the Battle Fleet

1. Seager and Maguire, Letters and Papers of Alfred Thayer Mahan, 3:399.

2. "U.S. Battleship Oregon Trip from San Francisco to Key West March 19 to May 26, 1898," 433-34.

3. Dinger, "Fuel for Ships of War," 344-45.

4. Asa Walker, "The Battle of Manila Bay," unpublished manuscript in the Naval War College Archives, as cited by Maurer in "Fuel and the Battle Fleet," 61.

5. Miller, War Plan Orange, 90.

6. "Lessons and Results of Battle Cruise," SciAm, 20 February 1909, 146, as cited by Reckner, Teddy Roosevelt's Great White Fleet, 161.

7. Miller, "Coaling Warships from Colliers in Harbor," 125-29. Although coaling tests between the battleship Massachusetts and the collier Marcellus at sea had been successfully conducted in 1900 while the latter was under tow, the amount of coal that could be transferred within a reasonable time was too small to be of tactical use.

8. Hamilton, "A Short History of the Naval Use of Fuel Oil," 291.

Chapter 1. The First Oilers

1. Although fuel oil had previously been used for "mixed firing" where it was sprayed on burning coal to increase furnace efficiency, the Nevada-class was the first to rely entirely on oil for fuel. See Maurer, "Fuel and the Battle Fleet," 60-77.

2. Although the Kanawah and the Maumee retained their centerline kingposts, these were reduced in height and relocated port/starboard and fore/aft on subsequent vessels.

3. By tradition oilers have usually been named after rivers in the United States.

4. Cleary, "The Main Engines of the USS Cuyama," 319. In terms of present-day construction costs for new navy oilers, the amount of money saved would be equivalent to around $1,350,000!

5. USS Kanawha (AO-1), Historical Summary Sheet, Ships Histories Branch, NHC.

6. Colley, "Development of the Diesel-type Marine Heavy-Oil Engine in the United States," 372.

7. Dyson, "Development of Machinery in the United States Navy during the Past Ten Years," 31.

8. Nimitz, "Description of Main Propelling Machinery for the USS Maumee," 794.

9. Naval Appropriation Act of August 22, 1912, Public Law No. 290, 62d Cong., 2d Sess., in Tillman, Navy Yearbook 1916, 351.

10. Nimitz, "The Navy's Secret Weapon."

11. Ibid.; Nimitz, "Description of Main Propelling Machinery for the USS Maumee," 796; USNIP, July 1917, 1517.

12. Cleary, "The Main Engines of the USS Cuyama" 322.

13. Naval Appropriation Act of August 22, 1912, Public Law No. 290, in Tillman, Navy Yearbook 1916, 351.

14. Naval Appropriation Act of June 30, 1914, Public Law No. 121, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., in Tillman, Navy Yearbook 1916, 380.

15. Nimitz, "The Navy's Secret Weapon."

16. Ibid.; USNIP, February 1917, 399.

17. Deck Log of USS Arethusa, February 23 to August 31, 1913, Log books, RG 24, NA. The entry for 13 April confirms that a test of oiling at sea was conducted with the Warrington on that date in "clear and pleasant weather." Few details were given, although it appears that the tests were conducted with a 2 1/2-inch fuel hose using a method first used by the British (for details see Miller, "Refueling Warships at Sea," 176).

18. These were "750-tonners" authorized in 1908-10. Taussig's division was composed of the new "1,000-tonners."

19. Dinger, Ltr from USS Maumee No. TC-60, sgnd H. C. Dinger (captain of the Maumee), dated 2 June 1917 as quoted in a letter from commander Destroyer Force (Albert Gleaves) to Destroyer Force, "Oiling Destroyers at Sea," 9 June 1917 (cited hereafter as Dinger Letter). ME-11, microfilm reel 13, Navy Department Library, NHC. Photocopies furnished courtesy of Professor William Still, East Carolina University.

20. Deck Log of USS Maumee, October 23, 1916-December 31, 1917, Log books, RG 24, NA. The entry for 28 May 1917 summarizes the events described by Dinger, thereby establishing this date as the first time that the Maumee conducted fueling at sea while under way. Nimitz's memory of the event, recalled more than forty years later in the article published by Petroleum Today, appears to be faulty in this regard.

21. Friedman, U.S. Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History, chap. 2.

22. Dinger Letter. Although only two hoses were used, Lt. Cdr. Dinger reported that it would be possible to obtain a transfer rate of up to 100,000 gallons per hour if additional hoses were rigged÷an accurate projection later validated by the Brazos (AO-4) during Fleet Problem XIV (see page 43).

23. Dinger Letter; Nimitz, "The Navy's Secret Weapon."

24. Dinger Letter.

25. The fiscal year (hereafter abbreviated as FY) started on 1 July of the preceding year and ended on 30 June of the year budgeted; that is, FY 1917 ran from 1 July 1916 to 30 June 1917.

26. Naval Appropriation Act of 29 August 1916, Public Law No. 261, 63d Cong., 3d Sess., in Tillman, Navy Yearbook 1916, 480-82.

27. On 20 July 1920, the Secretary of the Navy approved a system for identifying ships that is still used today. The scheme specified the use of letter designations for specific ship types followed by a unique hull number for every vessel commissioned in the U.S. Navy. Under the standard nomenclature adopted by the navy at that time, oilers were grouped under the heading "AO" for auxiliary fuel oil tanker.

Chapter 2. NOTS, the Shipping Board, and the Acquisition of Merchant Tankers in the First World War

1. Williams, The Wilson Administration and the Shipbuilding Crisis of 1917, 35.

2. Incorporated as the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, under the laws of the District of Columbia on 16 April 1917 with a capital stock of $50 million assigned to the U.S. Shipping Board on behalf of the United States.

3. Williams, Wilson Administration, 90; Hurley, The Bridge to France, 27-28.

4. Denman was an attorney specializing in admiralty law appointed to the Shipping Board as a political reward for assisting Wilson's reelection campaign of 1916.

5. Williams, Wilson Administration, 100.

6. The four yards were: Hog Island/American International Shipbuilding Corp., Bristol Yard/Merchant Shipbuilding Corp., Newark Yard/ Submarine Boat Corp., and Wilmington Yard/Carolina Shipbuilding Co.

7. The discussion in this and the next two paragraphs draws heavily on Clephane, History of the Naval Overseas Transportation Service in World War I.

8. Hurley, The Bridge to France, 123-25.

9. The Shipping Board originally arranged to place ammonia ice machines on new construction. The navy objected because the system could be ruptured by shell fire and escaping ammonia gas could harm the crew. The Emergency Fleet Corporation attempted to get C02 machines without success. Therefore, a separate compartment had to be built for the ammonia machines, which would take care of gas in case a shell punctured the machine.

10. SecNav Annual Report FY 1918, 35.

11. Taken over were: Gargoyle/Vacuum Oil Co., Gold Shell/Shell Company, Gulfport/Gulf Refining, Los Angeles/Union Oil, Topila/East Coast Oil Company, William D. Rockefeller/Standard Oil Company. A seventh tanker, the Hisco, was also acquired from the shipping board. For particulars see appendix A.

12. Although no documents between the shipping board and the navy have been located for these vessels, all twelve are listed in the Ships' Data for 1919 as "under construction" (see U.S. Navy, Ships' Data for 1919).

13. Clephane, History of the Naval Overseas Transportation Service, 175-76 (and next four paragraphs).

14. Fox, Always Good Ships, 116.

15. Various sources give different figures for the size of the Patoka's engines. The number shown here is taken from U.S. Navy, Ships' Data, July 1, 1931.

16. Transferred as of 29 October 1921, except for the Sepulga 13 December 1921, and the Tippecanoe, 6 March 1922, U.S. Navy, Ships' Data, vol. 3, 1945.

17. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS), vol. 5, 331.

18. DANFS, vol. 9, 127.

19. DANFS, vol. 1, 115.

Chapter 3. The Treaty Navy and the Problem of Refueling an Overseas Expedition

1. These islands--Carolines, Marshalls, and Marianas--were secretly mandated to Japan by Great Britain in 1917 and subsequently became known collectively as the "Mandates."

2. Miller, War Plan Orange, passim.

Ibid., 127.

4. Friedman, U.S. Aircraft Carriers, 119-20.

5. Miller, War Plan Orange, 144-47.

6. Dir WPD to Dir FTD, "The Problem of Refueling an Overseas Expedition," 20 November 1929, File S1-S68, SecNav SC File, RG 80, NA (hereafter "Problem of Refueling"), passim.

7. Ted C. Marshal, "The Evolution of Fueling at Sea," undated report date-stamped 2 April 1927, BuC&R Gen. Corr. File S55-(9) vol. 1, RG 19, NA.

8. Ibid.

9. J. R. Sullivan, CO USS Cuyama AO-3 to CO BasFor, "Fueling at Sea--Large Vessels," 9 December 1938, BasFor File S55-1, RG 313, NA. The commanding officer of the Cuyama was referring to information contained in the ship's logs.

10. Ibid.

11. "Log Book of U.S.S. Kanawha, January 1, 1924-December 31, 1924," entry for 4 December 1924, RG 24, NA.

12. CO Kanawha to CO BasFor, "Test of Oiling Astern Gear--23 May 1925--USS Kanawha--USS Arizona," 5 June 1925, BuC&R Gen. Corr. File S55-(9) vol. 1, RG 19, NA.

13. BuC&R Ltr S55-(9) (DA) of 14 October 1925, as cited by R. Jackson, CinCBatFlt to Chf BuC&R, "Fueling Battleship at Sea--Fourth Test of--31 October 1926--with U.S.S. Arizona--Report," 30 November1926,BuC&R File S55.

14. CO Kanawha to CO BasFor, "Oiling Battleship at Sea, Astern Method--Test of," 5 January 1926, BuC&R File S55.

15. From the record it appears probable that the Kanawha's commanding officer did not issue a report on the exercise until 5 January 1926 (see note 14). It is also likely that the results were not forwarded to the bureau until the commander in chief, Battle Fleet, issued his own.

16. Since flow decreased because of increased resistance, it was necessary to keep the hose length as short as possible. This required a short towline, which increased the difficulties involved in towing, especially in heavy weather.

17. BuC&R Ltr S57-(9) (DA), 14 September 1927, as cited by Jackson (see note 13).

18. CinCBatFlt Ltr S55-l(l)8792 of 5 October 1926 to ComFltBasFor as quoted by George Alexander, CO Kanawha to commander Fleet Base Force, "Fueling Battleship at Sea--Fourth Test of--31 October 1926."

19. Jackson, CinCBatFlt to chf of BuC&R, "Fueling Battleship at Sea-Fourth Test of--31 October 1926--with USS Arizona--Report."

20. Dir WPD to CNO, "Fueling at Sea," 9 February 1927, BuC&R Gen. Corr. File S55-(9) vol. 1, RG 19, NA.

21. The War Plans Division within the office of the Chief of Naval Operations was responsible for preparing and coordinating various aspects of war planning.

22. George H. Rock, "Fueling at Sea," 28 March 1927, BuC&R Gen. Corr. File S55-(9) vol. 1, RG 19, NA.

23. Ibid.

24. CNO (Edward W. Eberle) to chf of BuC&R, "Fueling at Sea," 14 April1927,BuC&R Gen. Corr. File S55-(9) vol. 1, RG 19, NA.

25. As of this date only eleven navy oilers--the Kanawha, Maumee, Cuyama, Brazos, Neches, Pecos, Patoka, Ramapo, Salinas, Sapelo, and Trinity--were fitted for broadside fueling (George M. Rock, Acting chf of BuC&R to CNO, "Fueling at Sea," 28 March 1927, BuC&R Gen. Corr. File S55-(9) vol. 1, RG 19, NA).

26. Recommended by BuC&R Ltr, 13 April 1931, S55-(9), endorsed by the CNO and SecNav, 23 April 1931, OP-23A-RSM S55-1/15-2 (310413), BuC&R Gen. Corr. File S55-(9) vol. 1, RG 19, NA.

27. CO Bremerton Navy Yard to chf BuC&R, "USS Lexington (CV-2) and Saratoga (CV-3)--Fueling Destroyers at Sea," 12 February 1931, BuC&R Gen. Corr. File S55-(9) vol. 1, RG 19, NA.

28. CO USS Salinas to chf of BuC&R, "Oiling Destroyers at Sea," 21 February 1931, BuC&R Gen. Corr. File S55-(9) vol. 1, RG 19, NA.

29. "Problem of Refueling," 20.

30. Ibid., 2.

31. Cargoes were allocated as follows: Fuel oil--7 AOs and 10 XOs (requisitioned tankers), Diesel oil--2 AOs, Gasoline--2 XOs; Ibid., 18.

32. As noted previously, the need to refuel battleships had been eliminated when it was decided to increase their fuel capacities as they were reconditioned.

33. "Problem of Refueling," 22.

34. CinCUS to CNO, "Reports of Fleet Problem IX," 18 March 1929, 71, microfilm series M964, RG 313; "Aviation in the Fleet Exercises, 1911-1939," No. 39 of the U.S. Navy Administrative Histories of WW II, Naval History Division, Navy Department, 1946.

35. CinCBatFlt Ltr S55-1(1)/FF2(1725) of 27 March 1929, described in pencil note: Dir WPD to Dir of Material Division, "Fueling at Sea," 16 April 1931, BuC&R Gen. Corr. File S55-(9) vol. 2, RG 19, NA.

36. BuC&R to CNO, Ltr no. EN7 (Secret 152), 21 December 1929, SecNav SC File S1-S68, RG 80, NA.

37. CO Salinas AO-19 to chf BuC&R "Oiling Destroyers at Sea," 21 February 1931, BuC&R Gen. Corr. File S55-(9) vol. 2, RG 19, NA.

38. CO, Bremerton Navy Yard to chf BuC&R "USS Lexington (CV-2) and USS Saratoga (CV-3)--Fueling Destroyers at Sea," 12 February 1931, BuC&R Gen. Corr. File S55-(9), RG 19, NA.

39. Joseph M. Reeves, CinCUS Annual Report FY 1935, 11 October 1935, microfilm series M971, roll 10, RG 313, NA.

40. Ibid.

Chapter 4. Rebuilding the Fleet

1. Albion, Makers of Naval Policy, 1798-1947, 78.

2. "Annual Estimate of the Situation, 1931," RG 80, NA, as cited in Walter, "William Harrison Standley, 1 July 1933-1 January 1937," in Love, The Chiefs of Naval Operations, 93.

3. Dobbin (AD-3), Whitney (AD-4), and Medusa (AR-2) were the last to be completed.

4. Albion, Makers of Naval Policy, 1798-1947, 249.

5. Elliot, "The Genesis of the Modern U.S. Navy," 64.

6. CNO (Pratt) to SecNav, "The Navy's Needs," 24 March 1933, File A1-3/QN, SecNav Gen. Corr. Files, RG 80, NA.

7. The size and number of major combatants were severely limited by the terms of the Washington Treaty of 1922 and its successor, the London Treaty of 1927.

8. J. D. Huske, "Memorandum for Chief Constructor," 16 February 1935, File Folder: Shipbuilding Data, 1932-36. Land Ms.

9. Albion, Makers of Naval Policy, 1798-1947, 252.

10. Levine, "The Politics of American Naval Rearmament, 1932-1938," PhD. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1972 (hereafter Levine, "Politics"), 380.

11. Land to SecNav, 16 March 1933, "Budget," Alphabetical File, SecNav Gen. Corr. Files, RG 80, NA.

12. Land, Winning the War with Ships, 145; Levine, "Politics," 80. Although Admiral Land claims responsibility for getting the words "ships and aircraft" written into the PWA Bill (though he does concede the help of Admiral Parsons, chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, and the chief clerk of the Naval Appropriations Committee), it appears that the idea to define public works to include shipbuilding for the navy originated with Parsons in November 1932. Since Land's book was written twenty-five years after the fact, it is likely that he did not feel it necessary to elaborate further (Huske, "Memorandum for Chief Constructor," Land Ms).

13. NIRA, Title II, Section 202 (e).

14. Statement made by Standley to elicit support in Congress for the Vinson-Trammell Act (Walter, "William Harrison Standley," in Love, The Chiefs of Naval Operations, 93.

15. He served briefly as director of War Plans between 1924 and 1925.

16. CNO to CinCUS, 13 July 1933, File A16-3/FF1, SecNav SC Files, RG 80, NA. Though the CNO was the highest ranking officer of the navy, he had no authority to direct operational forces of the fleet whose commander, known by the acronym CinCUS, reported directly to the Secretary of the Navy.

17. CinCUS (Sellers) to CNO, 26 August 1933, memo, "Tentative Draft of Contributory Plan 0-1 (Orange)," CinCUS prior 3 1939 (folder), Cominch-CNO (1932-39) files, World War II War Plans Collection, OpA-NHC.

18. SecNav to GB, AA/S1 (serial 330227), 21 September 1933. Though the original has not been located, it is referenced in subsequent documents relating to the subject of auxiliaries and most certainly initiated the General Board study that resulted in the extensive series of "Characteristics" for auxiliaries issued in December of that year (File 420-5, passim, GB Files, RG 80, NA).

19. Chrmn GB to CNO, serial no. 1628, 21 December 1933, File 420-5, passim, GB Files, RG 80, NA. Prior to World War II, all ships built by or for the U.S. Navy were designed on the basis of a set of characteristics formulated by the General Board.

20. Appointment to the General Board was usually the last assignment prior to retirement. It was the last tour of duty for admirals who had reached the pinnacle of their careers, but were no longer slated for higher command.

21. For further details on the capture of advance bases required for War Plan ORANGE see E. Miller, War Plan Orange, passim.

22. Morrel, "Tanker Construction," see table 2, 608.

Chapter 5. Standardization of Merchantmen and the T-2 Design

1. Chrmn GB (sgnd Thorn C. Hart) to SecNav (serial no. 1736), "Policy in Regard to Merchant Vessels," 27 February 1937, File 442, GB files, RG 80, NA (hereafter, "Policy in Regard to Merchant Vessels"), 3.

2. Hutchins, "History and Development of the Shipbuilding Industry in the United States," 56.

3. USNIP 60, no. 10 (October 1934): 1498.

4. J. W. Barnett, acting chief Division of Finance to dir, USSB, "Standardization of Merchant Vessels and Coordination Thereof with War Plans," 28 February 1934, MarCom File 505-1, RG 178, MARAD (hereafter "Standardization of Merchant Vessels").

5. The complete list can be found in the General Board's "Policy with Regard to Merchant Vessels," 5-8, though it appears that the date shown (February 1935) is incorrect.

6. Barnett, "Standardization of Merchant Vessels."

7. As referenced in a letter from Henry Heiman, dir, USSB, to SecNav, 26 March 1934, File A16/QS1, SecNav SC Files, RG 80, NA. The original letter from the Secretary of the Navy to Heiman of 12 March 1934 has not been located in the (SC)A16/QS1 file. It seems likely that the original was written by Standley since a reference to it was also noted under the Op-12D-CD file designation as well as (SQA16/QS1.

8. Corr. from Standley, as acting SecNav, to the administrator of the NRA, dated 19 March 1934, supports this contention as it indicates Standley's concern for the merchant marine (Levine, "Politics," 470).

9. Henry Heiman, dir, USSB, to SecNav, 26 March 1934, File A16/QS1, SecNav SC Files, RG 80, NA.

10. Ibid.

11. J. W. Barnett, acting chief Division of Loans and Sales to dir, USSB, "Standardization of Merchant Vessels," 7 August 1934, MarCom File 505-1, RG 178, MARAD.

12. "Policy in Regard to Merchant Vessels," 3.

13. USSB, Division of Loans and Sales, Memorandum of First Meeting, Committee on Standard Merchant Vessels, 23 April 1934, MarCom File 505-1, RG 178, MARAD.

14. First usage of the C-2, T-2, and P-2 designations is recorded in the minutes of the U.S. Shipping Board. These became the basis for the C2, T2, and P2 designations adopted by the U.S. Maritime Commission. For clarity, hyphenated versions are retained in the text to distinguish the designs of one agency from another.

15. USSB, Division of Loans and Sales, Memorandum for Fifth Meeting, Committee on Standard Merchant Vessels, 27 August 1934, MarCom File 505-1, RG 178, MARAD.

16. USSB, Division of Loans and Sales, Memorandum for Third Meeting, Committee on Standard Merchant Vessels, 16 June 1934, MarCom File 505-1, RG 178, MARAD.

17. USSB, Division of Loans and Sales, Memorandum for Fifth Meeting.

18. USSB, Division of Loans and Sales, Memorandum for Sixth Meeting, Committee on Standard Merchant Vessels, 21 November 1934, MarCom file 505-1, RG 178, MARAD.

19. Ibid.

20. Booklet, "Tanker Series #1, June 16, 1936," USSB, Dept. of Commerce. No copies of this document have been located to date.

21. H. F. Norton, naval architect, Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, to J. C. Peacock, dir USSB, letter dated 24 July 1936, MarCom File 505-1, RG 178, MARAD.

22. A total of 481 T2-SE-A1 tankers, generically known as the T-2 type, were built for the U.S. Maritime Commission between 1942 and 1945 (Wildenberg, "The Origins and Development of the T2 Tanker": Lane, Ships for Victory, 76).

Chapter 6. Fleet Oiler Design, 1934-1936

1. One veteran officer was inclined to rate Rear Adm. Emory S. Land as the cleverest politician the navy had produced (Albion, Makers of Naval Policy, 1798-1947,170; Land, Winning the War with Ships, 144).

2. Chf BuC&R (sgnd E. S. Land) to CNO, "Fifth Endorsement Oilers-Characteristics of," AO/S1-1 (DP), 18 June 1934, File 420-5, GB Files, RG 80, NA.

3. Ibid.

4. Comments from chiefs of bureaus, "Proposed Characteristics of OILERS," 16 July 1934, File 420-5, GB Files, RG 80, NA.

5. USSB, Division of Loans and Sales, Memorandum for Sixth Meeting.

6. Vickery, later elevated to rear admiral as Land's highly trusted assistant in the U.S. Maritime Commission, represented the bureau at many of the meetings of the joint standardization board.

7. BuC&R (sgnd E. S. Land) to CNO, "Destroyer Tenders--Characteristics of," 11 June 1934, File 420-5, GB Files, RG 80, NA.

8. USSB, Division of Loans and Sales, Memorandum for Sixth Meeting; Emory S. Land, chf BuC&R, to James E. Moss, Atlantic Refining Company, "Oil Tankers--Operating Expense at Various Speeds," 10 January 1935, BuC&R File AO-S1, RG 19, NA. In the letter, Land states: "The Bureau would appreciate a copy for its information in connection with similar studies now being made in the Navy Department," indicating that such studies were initiated in the bureau sometime before that date.

9. Land to Moss, 10 January 1935.

10. Moss, "Notes and Comments on the Operating Expense of Large Tank Ships at Various Speeds (Prepared for U.S. Navy Department)," 16 January 1935, BuC&R File AO-S1, RG 19, NA.

11. Ibid.

12. Chrmn GB to SecNav, "Auxiliary and Minor Combatant Vessels for Treaty Navy--Program of," 16 June 1934, File A1-3/AG, SecNav SC Files, RG 80, NA.

13. "Theoretical Study of an Orderly Schedule of Building Auxiliaries and Minor Combatant Vessels," Enclosure A attached to "Auxiliary and Minor Combatant Vessels for Treaty Navy--Program of."

14. For a complete discussion of the General Board's decline, see Albion, Makers of Naval Policy, 1798-1947, 91-92.

15. Levine, "Politics," 292.

16. A somewhat jumbled version of events surrounding the budget can be found in Levine, "Politics," 301-8.

17. Swanson to president, 25 November 1934, copy attached to "Memorandum for Admiral" (drafts of Auxiliary Bill), File S1-S68, Records of the Office of the SecNav, SC, RG 80, NA.

18. Ibid. To avoid congressional obstacles to the construction program wanted by the navy, Swanson suggested that all naval construction for FY 1936 be financed via the PWA.

19. Levine, "Politics," 175-81.

20. "Memorandum for Admiral" (drafts of Auxiliary Bill and various memorandums), 8 March 1935, File S1-S68, SecNav SC File, RG 80, NA.

21. Bell to Roosevelt, 27 April 1935; Folder: "Increase of the Navy, No. 1, 1927-1937," Central File 1921-1937, RG 51, NA, as cited in Levine, "Politics," 381.

22. Levine, "Politics," 384.

23. Handwritten note attached to chf BuC&R to officer in charge, Experimental Basin, BuC&R Files AO 21/S, RG 19, NA.

24. CinCUS (sgnd J. M. Reeves) to CNO, "Deficiencies of Base Force in Auxiliary Ships," 6 July 1935, File A4-1, SecNav Conf. Files, RG 80, NA.

25. Ibid.

26. Land, "Memorandum for Files," 9 August 1937, E. S. Land Folder, Land File, MarCom Files, RG 178, NA.

27. Chf BuC&R (sgnd E. S. Land) to CO, Central Drafting Office, New York, "Proposed Oiler for 1938 Auxiliary Building Program--Preparation Plans for," 26 February 1936, File A022-24/S1-1, BuC&R Files, RG 19, NA.

28. Ibid.

29. Officer in charge, Central Drafting Office (C&R), (sgnd A. B. Court) to chf BuC&R, "Navy Oiler--Report on Design of," 11 June 1936, File AO/1-1 (NN-1-2-3), BuC&R Conf. Files, RG 19, NA.

30. Officer in charge, Central Drafting Office (C&R), (sgnd A. B. Court) to chf BuC&R, "Fleet Oil Tanker (AO)--Design," 1 September 1936, File AO/1-1 (NN-1-2-3), BuC&R Conf. Files, RG 19, NA.

31. Ibid.

32. BuC&R (sgnd A. J. Chaney, by direction) to officer in charge, Central Drafting Office (C&R), New York, "Fleet Oiler (AO)--Design," 28 July 1936, File A022-24/S1-1, BuC&R Conf. Files, RG 19, NA.

33. Ibid.

34. Chf BuC&R and chf BuEng (sgnd E. S. Land and S. G. Bowen) to CNO, "Encouragement by Navy Department of the Construction of Fast Oil Tankers by Commercial Interests," 11 December 1934, File AO22-24/S1-1, BuC&R Conf. Files, RG 19, NA.

Chapter 7. The Merchant Marine Act and the Issue of Speed

1. Sawyer and Mitchell, Victory Ships and Tankers, 15.

2. Dir WPD to CNO, "Estimate of the Situation for Fiscal 1937," 30 March 1935, File L1-1 (1937), SecNav SC Files, RG 80, NA, as cited in Levine, "Politics," 469.

3. Barnett, "Standardization of Merchant Vessels and Coordination Thereof with War Plans."

4. For the complete list of vessels, see "Policy in Regard to Merchant Vessels."

5. Dir WPD to CNO, "Estimate of the Situation for Fiscal 1936," 31 March 1934, SecNav SC File L1-1 (1936), RG 80, NA, as cited in Levine, "Politics," 469.

6. The "Estimate" was used to formulate the Navy Department's plans for the coming year. It was drafted by the War Plans Division from memoranda submitted by the bureaus, and it provided an analysis of departmental policies, the current situation, the approved war plan, and the existing state of the naval establishment.

7. Standley (acting secretary) to administrator, NRA, 19 March 1934, File Al-2-(2), SecNav Files, RG 80, NA, as cited in Levine, "Politics," 469.

8. H. L. Seward, remarks made on the paper "Oil Tankers," 404. Professor Seward also served on the Joint Committee for the Standardization of Merchant Vessels. For a biography of Rear Admiral Cone, see SNAME Trans. 49 (1941): 404-8.

9. Dir WPD to CNO, "Estimate of the Situation for Fiscal 1936," as cited in Levine, "Politics," 469.

10. Title I, Section 101, "Declaration of Policy," Merchant Marine Act, 1936.

11. "The New Ship Subsidy Bill," 357.

12. Lane, "The Maritime Commission Goes to Work," 601.

13. Ibid.

14. Title II, Section 210, Merchant Marine Act, 1936.

15. Ibid.

16. CNO (sgnd W. H. Standley) to SecNav, Memorandum dated 1 December 1936, GB File 442. This memo begins on the bottom half of a previous memo titled "1st Endorsement" from the Secretary of the Navy to the chairman of the General Board requesting the board's recommendations concerning the characteristics of merchant vessels. Of interest is the fact that the endorsement was signed by Standley as acting secretary and dated 5 December 1936.

17. Land, chf BuC&R, to Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, Ltr dated 14 April 1936, File A021/S, BuC&R Gen. Corr. File, RG 19, NA.

18. Land, chf BuC&R, to Hague, Ltr 30 October 1936, File A021/S, BuC&R Gen. Corr. File, RG 19, NA.

19. Morrel, "Tanker Construction," 606-11.

20. Hague obituary, NYT, 9 March 1939.

21. Campbell to Hague, Ltr 30 October 1936, MarCom File 502-1-2 (National Defense Features), RG 178, MARAD.

22. Ibid.

23. Hague to Standley, Ltr 13 October 1936, MarCom File 502-1-2, RG 178, MARAD.

24. M. M. Taylor (MarCom commissioner) to Standley, Ltr 9 November 1936, a copy of which was attached as enclosure "B" to the following memo: CNO (sgnd W. H. Standley) to SecNav, Reference: (a) Merchant Marine Act, 1936, 1 December 1936, File 442, GB Files, RG 80, NA.

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid.

27. Memorandum attached to plans for Tanker Series No. 1, Joint Board for the Standardization of Merchant Vessels, SecNav File QS 7/S1, RG 80, NA, as cited in Levine, "Politics," 470-71.

28. Standley (as acting SecNav) to SecCom, Ltr 22 June 1936, MarCom File 505-1, RG 178, MARAD.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid.

31. CNO to chf BuC&R and chf BuEng, via JAG, "Encouragement by Navy Department of the Construction of Fast Oil Tankers by Commercial Interests," 14 November 1936, File A022-24/S1, BuC&R Conf. File, RG 19, NA.

32. Ibid.

33. CNO (sgnd W. H. Standley) to SecNav, 1 December 1936, File 442, GB Files, RG 80, NA (see note 16).

34. Ibid.

35. Chf BuC&R (sgnd E. S. Land) and chf BuEng (sgnd S. G. Bowen) to CNO, "Joint Endorsement--Second, Encouragement by Navy Department of the Construction of Fast Oil Tankers by Commercial Interests," 11 December 1936, BuC&R Conf. File A022-24/S1, RG 19, NA.

36. Bowen's only contribution seems to have been the last paragraph explaining the absence of any engineering data to date.

37. "Joint Endorsement--Second."

38. Ibid.

39. "Policy in Regard to Merchant Vessels."

40. Max O'Rell Truitt (general counsel to MarCom) Ltr 26 July 1937, MarCom File 502-1-2, RG 178, MARAD.

41. JAG (G. J. Rowcliff) to chf BuC&R and chf BuEng, "Encouragement by the Navy Department of the Construction of Fast Oil Tankers by Commercial Interests," 17 November 1936. This document was an integral part of Standley's memo of 14 November 1936.

42. Warren McLaine, Memorandum for the JAG, "Merchant Marine Act 1936, of 29 June 1936 (Public No. 875)," no date, MarCom File 502-1-2, RG 178, MARAD.

43. Telfair Knight (secretary, MarCom) to acting general counsel, 11 December 1936, MarCom File 502-1-2, RG 178, MARAD.

44. M. M. Taylor to SecNav, Ltr 25 February 1937, File QS1/A18, SecNav SC File, RG 80, NA.

45. Claude A. Swanson (SecNav) to MarCom, 31 March 1937, File QS1/ A18, SecNav SC File, RG 80, NA.

46. CO BasFor (sgnd W. T. Cluverius), to ComBatFor, "Comments and Recommendations Fleet Problem XVIII," 27 May 1937, Records Relating to United States Navy Fleet Problems I to XXII, 1923-1941, microfilm series M946, RG 313, NA (cited hereafter as Fleet Problems, RG 313), roll 23.

47. Ibid.

48. CO BatFor (sgnd C. C. Bloch) to CinCUS, "Comments and Recommendations Fleet Problem XVIII," 27 May 1937, Fleet Problems, RG 313, roll 23.

49. BuC&R, "Pilot Ltr," 18 August 1937, File A022-24/S1, BuC&R Conf. File, RG 19, NA.

50. CO BatFor (sgnd C. C. Bloch) to CinCUS, "New Oilers--Design of," 14 September 1937, File A022-24/S1, BuC&R Conf. File, RG 19, NA.

51. CinCUS (sgnd D. McD. Lebreton, chf of Staff) to CNO, "Oilers-Design," 23 September 1937, File A022-24/S1, BuC&R Conf. File, RG 19, NA.

Chapter 8. Admiral Land and the Construction of National Defense Tankers

1. E. S. Land to the president of the United States, 2 December 1936, Folder: Bureau of C&R, File 18S, Navy Dept., 1933-45, FDRL (hereafter File 18S, FDRL). As the highest ranking officer in the Construction Corps, Land held dual titles of chief of the Bureau of Construction and Repair and chief constructor of the navy.

2. The position of chief of the Bureau of Construction and Repair carried with it the rank of rear admiral for the period of appointment of four years.

3. Personal Facts re. Rear Admiral E. S. Land (CC), unsigned document (probably prepared by Marvin H. McIntyre, Roosevelt's closest advisor), File 18S, FDRL.

4. Land to McIntyre, 20 February 1937, File 18S, FDRL.

5. Handwritten note to "Mac" (Marvin McIntyre) sgnd "Jerry," 9 November 1936, File 18S, FDRL.

6. The president to Secretary McIntyre, telegram dated 19 November 1936, File 18S, FDRL.

7. Land, Winning the War with Ships, 5; Land to McIntyre, 20 February 1937.

8. Albion, Makers of Naval Policy, 1798-1947, 385. Albion provides an anecdote on the selection of Rear Adm. C. P. Synder as proof of Roosevelt's attitude about officers he did not know. Note also that "Roosevelt's three prewar Chiefs of Naval Operations, Standley, Leahy, and Stark, were all men whom he had known well."

9. Lane, Ships for Victory, 12.

10. Land, "How My Career Was Controlled by the Roosevelts," 63-69.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Ward, A First-Class Temperament, 352.

14. Rollins, Roosevelt and Howe, 136; "Resume of Service Record of Captain Emory Scott Land, USN," Biographical File, OpA-NHC.

15. Weir, Building American Submarines, 1914-1940, passim.

16. Land, "Resume of Service."

17. CNO to SecNav, 20 August 1919, as quoted by William S. Benson, Folder: Service Record, Land Ms.

18. Ibid. At the time the Navy Cross was the highest decoration awarded for combat heroism and other distinguished service.

19. Land, "Resume of Service."

20. Land, "How My Career," 67.

21. Wilson, Slipstream, 22. Wilson, a lieutenant commander during Land's years at BuAer, was heavily involved in the development of the radial engine. He left the navy in 1930 to join the United Aircraft Corporation eventually becoming its president.

22. Memorandum for the SecNav (sgnd W. A. Moffet), 1 August 1925, File 00/E. S. Land, BuAer Gen. Corr. File (1924-42), RG 72, NA.

23. These events are well beyond the scope of this text. For more information on this subject, see Charles M. Melhorn, Two Block Fox.

24. Albion, Makers of Naval Policy, 1798-1947, 239.

25. Land, Winning the War with Ships, 144.

26. Land, "How My Career."

27. Ibid.; Land, Winning the War with Ships, 143; Taylor to Swanson, 28 February 1933, Folder: Shipbuilding Data, Land Ms., LC.

28. Land, Winning the War with Ships, 145.

29. Albion, Makers of Navy Policy, 1798-1947, 170.

30. Emory Land, "Memoir," 125-26, as cited in Levine, "Politics," 93.

31. Land, Winning the War with Ships, 6-7.

32. Lane, Ships for Victory, 12.

33. Land, Winning the War with Ships, 6-7.

34. Lane, Ships for Victory, 15.

35. Acting dir., Division of Research to the chrmn of the Maritime Commission (Joseph Kennedy), memorandum "Make Up of the Fleet," 27 May 1937, MarCom Miscellaneous Files, E. S. Land Folder, RG 178, NA.

36. Land, Winning the War with Ships, 7.

37. Ibid.; NYT, 17 August 1937, 8.

38. Levine, "Politics," 427.

39. W. B. Woodson, JAG to SecNav, undated memorandum approved by the secretary on 29 July 1938, File Al-3(1939), SecNav SC Files, RG 80, NA.

40. Emory Land to chrmn, MarCom, memo: "Tankers," 26 July 1937, Folder: Shipbuilding Data, 1937, Land Ms.

41. Max O. Truit, general counsel to MarCom, 26 July 1937, MarCom File 502-1-2, RG 178, MARAD.

42. Emory S. Land, commissioner to general counsel, "Payment for Increased Speed of Tankers As a National Defense Feature," 30 June 1937, MarCom File 502-1-2, RG 178, MARAD.

43. Land memo: "Tankers."

44. Ibid.

45. Levine, "Politics."

46. William Leahy (CNO) to the president, memorandum dated 5 August 1937, MarCom Miscellaneous Files, E. S. Land Folder, RG 178, NA.

47. Emory S. Land, commissioner, Memorandum for Files, 9 August 1937, MarCom Miscellaneous Files, E. S. Land Folder, RG 178, NA.

48. J. S. Woods, dir, WPD to CNO, "Construction of Auxiliary Ships," 24 August 1937, File AA/A1-3, SecNav SC Files, RG 80, NA.

49. Woodson, undated memorandum approved by the Secretary of the Navy on 29 July 1938.

50. William D. Leahy (acting Secretary of the Navy) to chairman (U.S. Maritime Commission), 2 November 1937, MarCom File 502-23 (Part 1), RG 178, MARAD.

51. Wildenberg, "The Origins and Development of the T2 Tanker."

52. Joseph P. Kennedy, chrmn MarCom, Hearings before the Commerce Committee on Bill S. 3078, U. S. Commerce Committee (Senate) Hearings, 75th Congress, 2d Session.

53. NYT, 13 December 1937, 1, Grover, "The Panay Revisited: A Maritime Perspective," 260-68.

54. "Maritime Commission Working on Enlarged Program," 47.

55. "Senators Hear Plan for Swift Tankers," 4; Adm. Emory S. Land, acting chrmn MarCom, chairman, Statement before the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, 22 December 1937, Folder, Shipbuilding Data, 1937, Land Ms.

56. Ibid.

57. Land, Winning the War with Ships, 9-10.

58. Comptroller general of the United States to Unites States Maritime Commission, 30 September 1938, MarCom File 502-23-14, RG 178, MARAD, 10.

59. "The Cimarron," 9-10.

60. Ibid.; "Memorandum for Assistant CNO," 20 October 1939, File A16/ QS1, SecNav SC Files, RG 80, NA.

61. "The Cimarron," 9-10.

62. John G. Pew (president, Sun SB&DD Co.) to R. L. Hague, 6 December 1938, MarCom File 502-23 (Part 1), RG 178, MARAD.

63. Copies of the original bid documents can be found in MarCom File 502-23 (Part 1), RG 178, MARAD.

64. "New Tankers Allocated," NYT, 5 March 1938, 33.

65. Kurz, Through the Port of Philadelphia, 115-17.

66. "Standard Oil Allocates 2 Tankers," NYT, 5 March 1938, 8.

67. The Horsepower and R.P.M. Curves are reproduced from the data printed in Report of 18 Knot Speed, Maneuvering and Endurance Trials of Twin Screw Turbine Driven Tanker Esso Albany, Bethlehem Steel Company, September 1940, File QSL/L400903, SecNav Gen. Corr. File, RG 80, NA.

68. BuC&R (sgnd A. J. Chaney, by direction) to officer in charge, Central Drafting Office (C&R), New York, "Fleet Oiler (AO) Design," 28 July 1936, File A0222-24/S1-1, BuC&R Conf. File, RG 19, NA.

69. Construction contracts often stipulated the speed to be achieved during acceptance trials. This number is frequently listed in the description of the ship subsequently published in the press. Attempts to use this information for comparison purposes with other ships is complicated by the loaded condition of the vessels and/or the builder's ability to rig the trials in his favor. Design speed (alt. service or cruising speed) is more appropriate for this purpose as it represents the intended speed under normal operations.

70. Report of 18 Knot Speed.

Chapter 9. Cimarron, First of the Fast Tankers

1. Acting comptroller general to chrmn MarCom, Document #A-89721, 30 December 1938, MarCom File 502-23-14 (Navy Department-Acquisition of Tankers), Accession #178-55-9, RG 178, MARAD (hereafter, Comptroller General's Report), 10-11.

2. Ibid., 19.

3. Davis, A Navy Second to None, 373.

4. "The Cimarron," 9-10.

5. Naval Appropriation Act for fiscal year ending 30 June 1939, approved 26 April 1938. For further information on the funding of the various auxiliaries authorized during this period, see Woodson, undated memorandum approved by the secretary on 29 July 1938.

6. Albion, Makers of Naval Policy, 1798-1947, 253.

7. "Approve Navy Bill, Ease Big-ship Curb," NYT, 10 May 1938, 17.

8. Second Deficiency Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1938, approved 25 June 1938 (Public Law 723); Comptroller General's Report, 12.

9. "Eight oilers are now in commission. . . . All of these are in such bad material condition due to age that economical maintenance and continuous service is not possible" (Admiral Leahy, statement before the Naval Affairs Committee, Hearings on H.R. 9218, cited in the Comptroller General's Report, 39).

10. Comptroller General's Report, passim.

11. This quotation as well as those of the succeeding paragraph are taken from the Comptroller General's Report, 2-3.

12. "Navy Buys Two Tankers," 33.

13. "High-Speed Navy Tanker Cimarron," 103-4. MarCom Press Release, 7 February 1939, MarCom File 502-23, RG 178, MARAD.

14. DANFS, vol. 2, 117; "History of USS Cimarron (AO-22)," Ships Histories, NHC.

15. DANFS, vol. 5, 42.

16. "United States Maritime Commission, Master Index to Permanent and Current Progress Reports," Records Management Office, RG 178, MARAD (hereafter, MarCom Master Index).

17. DANFS, vol. 6, 325; MarCom Master Index.

18. The first ship contracted for by the U.S. Maritime Commission was the America, MC Hull No. 1. Though given the contract number MC Hull No. 2, Cimarron was launched first.

19. Figures listed here are for the Westinghouse turbines installed on the Sun-built ships. Federal-built ships had General Electric turbines while Bethlehem and Newport News ships were equipped with turbines built by their respective yards.

20. "High-Speed Navy Tanker Cimarron," 103-4.

Chapter 10. Navalization and Armament

1. Claude A. Swanson (SecNav) to MarCom, Ltr of 31 March 1937, File QS1/H18, SecNav SC Files, RG 80, NA.

2. Ibid.

3. R. S. Crenshaw, Memorandum for assistant chief of naval operations, "National Defense Tankers and Vessels for Conversion to Aircraft Carriers," 20 October 1939, File QS1/H18, SecNav SC Files, RG 80, NA.

4. CNO (sgnd William Leahy), Memorandum for the president, 5 August 1937, E. S. Land Folder, Land Files, RG 178, MARAD.

5. "The Cimarron," 8; Ships' Data for 1945, vol. 3, 159.

6. CNO (sgnd R. E. Ingersol, Acting) to BuShips/BuOrd, "S.S. Esso Albany and S.S. Esso Columbia--Conversion of," 7 September 1940, noted as File (SC) AO/L9-3, but located in SecNav File QS1/L4, RG 80, NA.

7. Ibid.

8. GB Serial No. 1447 dated 23 October 1929 and approved 12 December 1929, GB File 420-5, RG 80, NA.

9. Chrmn GB to SecNav, "Revision of Characteristics for Naval Auxiliaries, Building Program 1938," 13 August 1937, GB serial No. 1752, File AA/S1-1, SecNav SC Files, RG 80, NA.

10. "Pilot Letter" from Bureau of Construction and Repair to chief of naval operations (Ship Development) [and various Bureaus], "Oilers-Design," 18 August 1937, File A022-24/S1, BuC&R Conf. File, RG 19, NA.

11. BuOrd to CNO, "Characteristics of Ammunition Ships, Destroyer Tenders, Hospital Ships, Transports, Submarine Tenders, Repair Ships, and Oilers," 14 April 1934, GB File 420-5, RG 80, NA.

12. Chrmn GB to SecNav, "Revision of Characteristics for Naval Auxiliaries, Building Program 1938."

13. For the oiler this would necessitate an additional electric load of approximately 100 k.w. (Ibid.).

14. BuEng (sgnd J. H. Chadwick) to Admiral Greenslade (senior member, General Board), "Fire Control Installation in Auxiliary Vessels," 25 January 1940, File A022-24/S1, BuC&R Conf. File, RG 19, NA. The Auxiliary Building Program of 1938 (passed 30 July 1937) provided a total of $50 million for the construction and armament of six auxiliaries including: AV-4, AD-14, AO-22, AS-11, AM-55, and AT-64. Availability of funds for the Dixie (AD-14) and the Curtiss (AV-4) were restricted to a specific amount set by Congress, which limited the amount of armor, armament, and ammunition that could be spent to $412,000 for the Dixie and $637,000 for the Curtiss. Because of these restrictions, there was not enough money to procure and fit the Mark 37 directors intended for these ships.

15. CNO to SecNav, 5 January 1940, File A022-24/S1, BuC&R Conf. File, RG 19, NA.

16. SecNav (Charles Edison) to chrmn GB, "USS Cimarron, USS Neosho, USS Platte--Battery and Fire Control Equipment on Final Conversion," 5 January 1940, File A022-24/S1, BuC&R Conf. File, RG 19, NA.

17. Chrmn GB to chf of BuOrd/BuEng/BuC&R, "USS Cimarron, USS Neosho, USS Platte--Battery and Fire Control Equipment on Final Conversion," 9 January 1940, File A022-24/S1, BuC&R Conf. File, RG 19, NA.

18. Chf BuOrd (sgnd W. R. Furlong) to chrmn GB, "Fire Control Installations for Auxiliary Vessels," 16 January 1940, File A022-24/S1, BuC&R Conf. File, RG 19, NA.

19. BuEng, "Fire Control Installation in Auxiliary Vessels."

20. Chrmn GB (sgnd W. R. Sexton) to SecNav, "USS Cimarron, USS Neosho, USS Platte--Battery and Fire Control Equipment on Final Conversion," 29 January 1940, GB Serial No. 1912, File AO22-24/ S1, BuC&R Conf. File, RG 19, NA.

21. Chrmn GB to chf BuOrd/BuEng/BuC&R, "USS Cimarron, USS Neosho, USS Platte--Battery and Fire Control Equipment on Final Conversion," 29 February 1940, File A022-24/S1, BuC&R Conf. File, RG 19, NA.

22. The Cimarron was the only tanker equipped with a main battery of 5-inch DP guns as main battery, Mark 37 director, and secondary battery of machine guns. The only other Cimarron-class tanker so equipped was the Platte. However, by the time the Platte was converted, the secondary battery of .50-caliber machine guns had been replaced by other weapons.

23. A list of these changes can be found in the Records of the General Board, File 420-5. Over one hundred specific items were described in detail.

24. Data concerning the 5"/38 and Mark 37 director in this and subsequent paragraphs is taken from "Naval Ordnance and Gunnery," NAVPER 16116, Bureau of Personnel, Training Division, May 1944, 120. The practice loading machine is noted on the tracings prepared prior to conversion.

25. See note 14.

26. Chf BuOrd (sgnd W. R. Furlong) to chf BuC&R, "Cimarron (AO-22)-- Neosho (AO-23)--Characteristics," 23 January 1939, File AO21-24/ S1, BuC&R Conf. File, RG 19, NA.

27. BuShips to chrmn MarCom, "Fuel Oil Tankers of the Cimarron Class: Design of," 5 October 1940 [penciled note], GB File 420-5, RG 80, NA.

28. Chart of "Preliminary Ordnance Weights--Oiler AO-22," no date, File A021-24/S1, BuC&R Conf. File, RG 19, NA.

29. Chf BuOrd (sgnd W. R. Furlong) to chf BuC&R, "Cimarron (AO-22)-- Neosho (AO-23)--Characteristics." Confirmation of the location of guns, director, magazine spaces, blast shields, and so on can be seen on the following drawings: MarCom Drawing No. T3-S2-A2-S9-0-1, "General Arrangement and Outboard Profile (T3-S2-A2 Design) [Record Tracings of T3-S2-A1 as completed by the Contractor (Sun) modified by Phila. Navy Yard]," 2 November 1940, MarCom Plan No. T3-S2-A2-S12-7-1, "Inboard Profile (T3-S2-A2 Design) [Record Tracings of T3-S2-A1 as completed by the Contractor (Sun) modified by Phila. Navy Yard]," 2 November 1940.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid.

32. Rawlings and Leighton, Fat Girl, 9-10.

33. Ibid., "She took one fat 5-incher, three brand-new 3-inch 50's, and eight of the 20-mm. quick firing machine guns."

34. Senior member, Navy Department Antiaircraft Defense Board to CNO, 22 March 1941, File AO21-24/S1, BuC&R Gen. Corr. File, RG 19, NA.

Chapter 11. The Second Group of National Defense Tankers

1. NYT, 10 February 1940, 31.

2. "The Second Group of National Defense Feature Tankers," 487.

3. "High-Speed Tanker, Corsicana," 8-9.

4. "Tanker Mobilfuel," 308-16.

5. The Mobilfuel had a maximum shaft horsepower of 4,400 and made 14 knots on her trials.

6. "High Speed Tanker, Corsicana."

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. MarCom, Drawing no. T3-S5-0-1, "T3 Preliminary Lines and Body Plan," 3 October 1939, AMM. Contemporary photographs (e.g., #19-N-70310, RG 19, NA) of the Kennebec (AO-36) clearly show that these ships were not built with a semibulbous bow.

10. Ibid. This issue is further clouded by the fact that the T3-S-A1 design was not formally used until August 1940, when the U.S. Maritime Commission placed orders for thirteen vessels of this type with Bethlehem Steel, Sparrows Point.

11. "High Speed Tanker, Corsicana."

12. ME&SR, March 1940, 118. This is the first documented use by the Maritime Commission of the T2 designation located by the author. The change was consistent with the commission's classification system since the ships requested were expected to be less than 500 feet along the waterline when built.

13. Marine Age, April 1940, 20.

14. Ibid. The bid was $2,620,000 for each of two ships.

15. Ibid., Sun Hull nos. 221 and 222.

16. Wildenberg, "The Origins and Development of the T2 Tanker." Note the similarities in characteristics between the shipping board's T2 design (page 59) and those for the Aekay and her sister ships as shown for the Mattaponi (127).

17. "National Defense Tanker Corsicana," 148-50.

18. Kurz, Through the Port of Philadelphia, 122.

19. "Standard Oil Tanker Esso Albany," 134-35.

20. "Esso Albany," 140-41.

Chapter 12. Enter the Carrier

1. CinCBatFlt, Ltr S55-1(1)/FF2 (1725) of 27 March 1929, described in a pencil note attached to dir WPD memorandum to dir of Material Division, "Fueling at Sea," 16 April 1931, BuC&R Gen. Corr. File S55-(9), RG 19, NA.

2. CNO (sgnd William D. Leahy) to CinCUS, "Fueling at Sea--Large Vessels," 20 October 1938, BuC&R Gen. Corr. File S55-(9) vol. 5, RG 19, NA.

3. CNO to CinCUS, "Fueling at Sea, Large Vessels," undated but attached to SecNav ltr 1569 of September 1938, WPD File, World War II Files, OpA-NHC (Courtesy Ed Miller, Stamford, Conn.)

4. Ibid.

5. Friedman, U.S. Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History, 49.

6. Ibid., 51.

7. USS Saratoga--Trial Data, in "Some Observations on the Design of Airplane Carriers," 69.

8. Friedman, U.S. Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History, 49.

9. Clark, Carrier Admiral, 65.

10. Rear Adm. Francis D. Foley to author, Ltr 3 May 1993. Admiral Foley served on board "Lex" during the fruitless search for Amelia Earhart.

11. If Ramapo had not been available, the small oilers ferrying fuel to Lahaina, about 75 miles from Pearl, would have had to make numerous trips before the huge carrier's appetite for fuel was satiated (related by Admiral Foley, see preceding note).

12. Foley to author. The list was caused by her 8" gun battery, which overweighed the starboard side.

13. Clark, Carrier Admiral, 65.

14. CinCUS to ComBatFor/ComScoFor, "Fueling At Sea Large Vessels," 27 October 1938, BuC&R File S55-(9) vol. 5, RG 19, NA.

15. ComBatFor (sgnd E. C. Kalbus) to ComBasFor, "Fueling at Sea-- Large Vessels," 10 November 1938, File S55-1, Base Force Gen. Corr. Files 1931-1942, Records of the U.S. Fleet, RG 313, NA (hereafter Base Force File S55).

16. CinCUS (sgnd H. F. Leary, chief of staff) to commander Task Force 7 (commander Battleship Division One), "Fueling at Sea--Large Vessels," 25 November 1938, Base Force File S55.

17. Chester Nimitz, commander Task Force 7 (commander Battleship Division One) to CinCUS, "Fueling at Sea--Large Vessels," 13 December 1938, Base Force File S55.

18. Ibid.

19. CinCUS (sgnd C. C. Block) to CNO/chf BuC&R, "Fueling at Sea-Large Vessels," 15 December 1938, Base Force File S55.

20. Chester Nimitz, commander Task Force 7 (commander Battleship Division One) to commanding officer, USS Vincennes, USS Chester, USS Brazos, "Fueling at Sea--Large Vessels," 13 December 1938, Base Force File S55.

21. "Log Book of USS Kanawha, January 1, 1939-December 31, 1939," entry for 12 June 1939, RG 24, NA. Experiments to develop fueling at sea gear for use between destroyers and CVs had been conducted by the destroyer Tarbell and the Saratoga in 1930. It appears likely that such gear was subsequently installed on board Saratoga, thus providing the capability to pass the various lines and hoses to Kanawha as noted in the latter's deck log referenced herein (see Commandant [Mare Island Navy Yard] to Chief of the Bureau of Construction and Repair, 5 February 1931, BuC&R File S55-[9]). This would also explain why station-keeping exercises were conducted between the Chester and the Mugford, whereby the Mugford was used to simulate the actions of the approaching ship as opposed to the ship to be fueled.

22. Arleigh Burke (captain of the Mugford during these exercises) to Marvin O. Miller (manager, Underway Replenishment Dept., Naval Ship Weapon Systems Engineering System, Port Hueneme, Calif.), Ltr 30 October 1981. Courtesy Marvin O. Miller.

23. CNO to BuShips, "Esso Richmond, Esso Trenton, Seakay," 19 October 1940, File QS1/L4, SecNav Gen. Corr. File, RG 80, NA.

24. Bill Upton, former chief boatswain's mate, 21 January 1992, correspondence to the author. (Upton served aboard the Kaskaskia (AO-27) between 1940 and 1943.)

25. Upton to author, 13 January 1992. The importance of this exercise and the subsequent improvements made to the fueling rig described by Upton are hard to assess. Upton's account of the difficulties encountered by Kaskaskia combined with an examination of photographs of fueling-at-sea operations in the Pacific taken during World War II provide ample evidence of the problems experienced by oiler crews when attempting to conduct these operations in heavy seas. It may be that the lack of adequate fueling gear contributed to the problems encountered by Admiral Fletcher in his attempts to refuel from the Neches during the abortive operation to reinforce Wake. If such were the case, then the success of later operations can probably be attributed to the modifications suggested by Kaskaskia's crew as a result of its experience off Johnston Island. ("The entire operation was slow and not very efficient. Our booms were too short, there were no quick releasing hooks, no quick shut off valves" [Upton to author, 21 January 1992].)

Chapter 13. Naval Expansion and the Acquisition of Additional Oilers

1. Morison, History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, vol. 3, 42-44.

2. Adm. William D. Leahy, Testimony on H.R. 9218 (Navy Expansion Program), 7 February 1938, 2068-69, as cited in Comptroller General's Report, 39.

3. Annual Estimate of the Situation of the Chief of Naval Operations for Fiscal Year 1942, Approved 15 April 1940, File L1-1, BuC&R SC (1940-41), RG 19, NA.

4. 54 stat. 527, as quoted in Albion, Makers of Naval Policy, 1798-1947, 452.

5. Assistant CNO (sgnd Royal E. Ingersoll) to BuShips, "SS Esso Albany and SS Esso Columbia--Conversion of," 7 September 1940, GB File 420.5, RG 80, NA.

6. Ibid.

7. BuShips to chrmn MarCom, "Fuel Oil Tankers of the Cimarron Class: Design of," 5 October 40 (date added by hand), GB File 420-5, RG 80, NA.

8. Ibid.

9. Op Nav letter 277730 of 9 October 1940 as referenced in BuShips to chrmn MarCom, "Esso Trenton, Esso Richmond, Seakay," 16 October 1940, File QS1/L4, SecNav Gen. Corr. File, RG 80, NA.

10. Albion, Makers of Naval Policy, 1798-1947, 564-67.

11. CNO to BuShips, "Esso Richmond, Esso Trenton, Seakay," 16 October 1940, File QS1/L4, SecNav Gen. Corr. File, RG 80, NA.

12. CNO to BuShips, "Esso Richmond, Esso Trenton, Seakay," 19 October 1940, File QS1/L4, SecNav Gen. Corr. File, RG 80, NA; Friedman, U.S. Aircraft Carriers.

Chapter 14. The Emergency Building Program and the Development of the T2-SE-A1 Tanker

1. Lane, Ships for Victory, 40.

2. Public Law No. 5, 6 February 1941, 77th Congress, 1st session.

3. Lane, Ships for Victory, 38-39.

4. Ibid., 44.

5. Ibid., 54.

6. By presidential conference on 14 March 1941 (Ibid., 57).

7. Public Law No. 23, 27 March 1941, 77th Congress, 1st session.

8. Lane, Ships for Victory, 55.

9. Ibid., 56; Dillon, "Forty Years of Ship Designs under the Merchant Marine Act, 1936-1976," 9; ME&SR, May 1941, 120.

10. In a turboelectric-drive installation, steam from a conventional boiler is used to power a turboelectric generator connected to a large electric motor that drives the propeller shaft.

11. Lane, Ships for Victory, 56; Peterson, "Geared Turbine vs. Electric Drive for Ships," 24-25.

12. The first of these, the J. W. Van Dyke, was completed in 1938. For more information on these vessels see Lester M. Goldsmith, "The High-pressure, High-temperature Turboelectric Tanker J. W. Van Dyke," 548-58, 570.

13. In June 1941, provision was made to expand the production of turbines and gears. Contracts were subsequently awarded to General Electric for the construction of a new plant at West Lynn, Mass., and to Westinghouse for a plant at Lester, Pa. Gears formed the tightest part of the production bottleneck, however, since the machine tools to build them were so scarce that new ones had to be built. The problem was so severe that gear hobbers were later imported from England to further increase capacity (Lane, Ships for Victory, 398).

14. Stewart, "New Developments in Tanker Design," 186-87; U.S. Maritime Commission Drwg. No. T2-SE-A1-S9-1 (Alt. 2), "T2-SE-A1 General Arrangement and Inboard Profile," 14 May 1940 (Author's collection).

15. MarCom hull number 316-87 (Sun yard nos. 241-312). Twenty-one separate contracts, mainly of four vessels each, were issued. This was probably done to facilitate payment for work in process and/or subsequent price changes and adjustments. It appears that plans for MC hulls no. 306-15, originally intended as Sun-built C2 cargo ships, were converted into T2-SE-Als on this date thus committing Sun to tanker construction only, a policy that made sense in light of Sun's workload (U.S. Maritime Commission, "Master Index to Permanent and Current Progress Reports," RG 178, MARAD; ME&SR, May 1941, 120).

16. MarCom Drwg. No. T2-SE-A1-S9-1 (Alt. 2).

17. Walton, Miracle of World War II, 71.

18. Ibid.

Chapter 15. Wartime Requisition and Conversion of Merchant Tankers

1. Ballantine, U.S. Naval Logistics in the Second World War, 81.

2. SecNav, Serial No. 410123, Ltr 23 January 1941, File QB(145)/Pl4-2, SecNav Gen. Corr. File, RG 80. NA; Franklin D. Roosevelt to Admiral Land, Ltr 8 December 1941. Reproduced in Land, Winning the War with Ships, 162.

3. Land, Winning the War with Ships, 162.

4. Ibid., 163.

5. Ibid.

6. WSA Administrative Orders Nos. 1 and 2 (see Lane, Ships for Victory, 162). Rear Adm. Howard L. Vickery had been named a commissioner on 26 September 1940 at Land's recommendation so that there would be one commissioner in charge of construction. Vickery, a commander at the time, was first assigned to the maritime commission on 24 May 1937, as assistant to Rear Adm. Emory Land, then commissioner in charge of construction and technical activities. Commander Vickery had previously served under Land as head of the War Plans Section of Design in the Bureau of C & R and had represented the department as a member of the joint board. After Land's appointment as chairman in February 1938, Commander Vickery was made assistant to the chairman and placed in charge of all matters pertaining to construction. Vickery's appointment to commissioner entailed the passage of a special act of Congress, which permitted him to remain on the active list while serving as a civilian appointee. His meteoric rise to rear admiral (Vickery was promoted on 4 February 1942) paralleled the growth of the commission's shipbuilding program and reflected the increased importance of this activity. As the expert on production, Admiral Vickery was the driver who by daily conferences and telegrams directed, advised, and goaded the managers of the shipyards. Promoted to vice admiral in the fall of 1944, he suffered a severe heart attack shortly thereafter, which curtailed his career.

7. "Esso Albany," Marine Age.

8. DANFS, vol. 2, passim.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. Senior member, Auxiliary Vessels Board, to SecNav, via CNO, "Auxiliary Vessels Board Report No. 35," 4 March 1942, File AA/S1-1 to AA/QB, SecNav Gen. Corr. File, RG 80, NA.

12. DANFS, vol. 1, 123; Beyer and Beyer, "U.S. Navy Mystery Ships," 330 and 335.

13. Gannon, Operation Drumbeat, 305.

14. History of the George G. Henry/Victoria is taken from Standard Oil, Ships of the Esso Fleet in World War II, 15-21; DANFS, vol. 7, 509-12; Larson, Knowlton, and Popple, New Horizons, 1927-1950: History of Standard Oil Company, 525.

15. On that date, the Pecos, which had been detached to pick up the survivors of the Langley sinking, was attacked by succeeding waves of Japanese dive-bombers (three squadrons). Though the ship put up a gallant defense, she was struck by six 500-pound bombs and straddled by three near-misses, which added to the devastation splitting seams and buckling plates below the ship's waterline. Her captain, Cdr. E. Paul Abernethy, was forced to order the ship abandoned three hours and forty minutes after the start of the attack. For an excellent description of this event, see Messimer, Pawns of War, 135-61.

16. Senior member, Auxiliary Vessels Board to SecNav via the vice CNO, "Auxiliary Board Report 46: Recommendation for Acquisition of Four (4) Fleet Oilers," 19 June 1942, File AA/QB (Jun-Dec), SecNav Gen. Corr. File, RG 80, NA.

17. Ibid.

18. Evidence for Land's proposal can be found in a letter from the vice CNO to the CNO Naval Personnel and the commandant, Fifth Naval District, 21 April 1943, found in GB File 420.5. References beginning the letter indicate the maritime commission's proposal was issued via letter dated 21 January 1942.

19. The vice CNO to the CNO Naval Personnel and the commandant, Fifth Naval District, "Acquisition of 14 Cimarron-type Fleet Oilers (T3-S2-A1)--AO 51 to 64," Serial 048339, 21 April 1943, File 420.5, GB File, RG 80, NA.

20. The ships of the Ashtabula class were the only fleet oilers to be included in the navy's wartime building programs. All other wartime oilers were acquired through the maritime commission and funded through general tonnage appropriation for auxiliaries. For additional information on appropriation and funding for all U.S. Navy vessels, see Stephen S. Roberts's excellent article, "U.S. Navy Building Programs during World War II."

21. ME&SR, April 1942, 228.

22. The vice CNO to the chief of Naval Personnel and the commandant, Fifth Naval District, "Acquisition of 14 Cimarron-type Fleet Oilers (T3-S2-A1)--AO 51 to 64."

23. W. A. Lee, Jr., senior member, Navy Department Antiaircraft Defense Board to CNO, 22 March 1941, BuC&R Conf. File A021-24/S1, RG 19, NA.

24. Ibid.

25. Of the original Cimarron class, only the Cimarron, Platte, and Salamonie mounted a main battery of four 5-inch guns.

26. "M.S. Esso Williamsburg," 85-86.

27. Lane, Ships for Victory, 61.

28. Admiral Vickery; Hearings before Subcommittee of Committee on Appropriations, 77th Cong., 1st session, 17 July 1941, 409, as cited in Lane, Ships for Victory, 62.

29. "Summary of Yearly Shipbuilding," Table II--Shipbuilding.

30. Ibid.

31. The size of the engines used to power the T3-S-A1 is generally listed at 7,000 s.h.p. normal power with 7,700 s.h.p. given as the maximum rating under continuous operation.

32. Senior member, Auxiliary Vessels Board to SecNav via the vice CNO, "Auxiliary Board Report 51: Acquisition of Tankers for Navy Use-- Recommendations on," 7 August 1942, File AA/QB (Jun-Dec), SecNav Gen. Corr. File, RG 80, NA.

33. Ibid.

34. Finnie, ed., Marinship, 7.

35. Ibid., 393.

36. The P2 design was a 610-foot, 10,000-ton, twin-screw transport originally intended for passenger use.

37. Finnie, Marinship, 138.

38. Ibid., 131.

39. Ibid., 138.

40. Ibid., 141.

41. Contract No. MCcl7032 to construct eighteen T2-SE-A2 tankers was issued by the maritime commission on 10 June 1943.

Chapter 16. Early Operations in the Atlantic

1. Morison, History, vol. 1, 45.

2. Ibid., 61.

3. Ibid., 74-78.

4. Cruising range was calculated from the fuel consumption figures obtained during trials. Thus, it represented a theoretical maximum, since bottom fouling, normal degradation of the engineering plant, and the additional weight that always seemed to grow on any ship after its acceptance would reduce the ship's performance from the ideal.

5. Morison, History, vol. 1, 109-11.

6. E.g., the Esso Williamsburg, one of several new 151/2-knot tankers just being delivered on 15 May 1941 ("M.S. Esso Williamsburg," 85-86).

7. The C3 was one of a series of standard-type cargo ships developed by the U.S. Maritime Commission during the prewar period as part of the program to modernize the merchant marine. The fastest C3s were rated at 18 to 181/2 knots.

8. For a complete history of the conversion program, see Friedman, U.S. Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History.

9. Tom Blackburn, who served as a pilot aboard Santee during the ship's deployment in operation TORCH, describes an incident that illustrates the inherent suitability of these vessels for combat operations. As a Dauntless (SBD) was leaving the deck, the suspension lug holding a 500-pound depth bomb failed. As Blackburn and other onlookers watched in horror, the bomb bounced and rolled down the flight deck before falling over the bow. It exploded "with a great roar and a mighty upheaval of water directly below the aircraft elevator." Aside from toppling a 300-pound director and jamming the elevator, no other damage was detected although it is claimed that the double hull oil-canned (i.e., it dished in and then snapped back) (Blackburn, The Jolly Rogers, 21).

Chapter 17. Fleet Logistics and the Operational Use of Oilers in the Pacific

1. The four type commands--Battle Force, Scouting Force, Submarine Force, and Base Force--were instituted when Adm. William V. Pratt reorganized the fleet in November 1930 with an eye toward developing better tactics and doctrine.

2. "History of Service Force," No. 155 of the U.S. Navy Administrative Histories of WW II, 324.

3. ComBasFor Conf. Ltr. to BasFor, dated at Pearl Harbor, T. H., 25 August 1941, cited in "History of Service Force," 11.

4. Lundstrom, "Frank Jack Fletcher Got a Bum Rap," 23.

5. Morison, History, vol. 3, 242.

6. It is unlikely (as Morison suggests) that the cruisers could have been used for this purpose since most probably were not equipped for fueling at sea at this stage of the war, and fueling from Saratoga would have robbed this capital ship of her precious reserves.

7. Morison, History, vol. 3, 242--43. According to the entries in Neches's log, only three hoses parted during the entire two-day fueling operation.

8. Log Book USS Neches, entries for 22 and 23 December 1941, 732-33. Copies furnished the author by Floren V. Boone (former crew member), Willows, Calif.

9. Dinger Letter.

10. Morison, History, vol. 3, 242-43.

11. Lundstrom, "Frank Jack Fletcher Got a Bum Rap," 25.

12. For a description of WPPac-46 and the importance of Wake Island, see Miller, War Plan Orange, chapter 25.

13. Without a covering force of destroyers, it is difficult to see how the task force's heavy cruisers could have engaged the enemy without suffering heavy casualties.

14. Loss of Saratoga at this stage of the conflict would have raised serious doubts as to the capabilities of U.S. carriers and might have dramatically changed the course of the war.

15. Morison, History, vol. 3, 260.

16. The "oil king" was an unofficial title bestowed on that member of the engine room crew responsible for taking the daily measure of all tanks containing fuel and fresh water aboard, and duly reporting same to the captain for the daily entry into the ship's log.

17. Stafford, The Big "E," 44.

18. Upton to author, correspondence of 21 January 1992.

19. Rawlings and Leighton, Fat Girl, 9-10.

20. Ibid., emphasis added.

21. The Tippecanoe (AO-21), a WWI vintage tanker of commercial origins, was assigned this task though it appears that she was ill suited to meet the timely demands of a modern carrier group. Morison has overlooked this fact in his otherwise exemplary history of U.S. naval operations in World War II.

22. Morison, History, vol. 4, 22.

23. Rawlings and Leighton, Fat Girl, 14.

24. Morison, History, vol. 4, 33-35.

25. Ibid.; DANFS, vol. 5, 42.

26. See Miller, War Plan Orange, chapter 17, for the origins of the navy's strategy in the Pacific.

27. The invasion of the Solomons and New Guinea was mounted with little advance planning in order to respond quickly to the growing threat of Japanese expansion in the Pacific.

28. ComServPac Conf. Ltr. to CincPac, serial 0831, 4 August 1942, as cited in "History of Service Force," 327.

29. Morison, History, vol. 7, 107.

30. Heeding was no stranger to carrier operations having come from Essex where he served as the ship's air officer before being promoted to Exec.

31. Hedding, "The Reminiscences of Vice Admiral Truman J. Hedding, USN (Ret.)," 37-39.

32. Carter, Beans, Bullets, and Black Oil, 98; Morison, History, vol. 7, 108, see also appendix 2, 340.

33. Carter, Beans, Bullets, and Black Oil, 139; Morison, History, vol. 7, 345.

34. Morison, History, vol. 7, 345-46.

35. Ibid., vol. 12, 82.

36. By war's end, 727 ships were assigned to Service Squadron 8.

37. Morison, History, vol. 12, 76.

Chapter 18. Combat Logistic Support Emerges as an Integral Component of Operational Planning

1. Though no offensive action by enemy submarine was experienced by the oiling groups, submarines were encountered on several occasions and at least two kills were credited to the screening escorts (Lecture notes, "Mobile Fleet Support," delivered by Capt. E. E. Paré, 16 September 1947, 11, HC-NWC).

2. Carter, Beans, Bullets, and Black Oil, 196.

3. Fueling at Sea Instructions, COMINCH P-2, November 1944, v, File FX-40, Fleet Records of World War Two, OpA-NHC.

4. Ibid.

5. Before the war, most of the large hose (i.e., 6-inch internal diameter and over) was made on a mandrel with wire inserted. The purpose of this wire was to avoid collapse when used as a suction hose. Couple this wire with heavy cotton fabric and metal flanges with five 3/4-inch bolt circles and a 12-foot length, and you had a very heavy hose that was stiff and hard to bend. "The sheer weight of several lengths when bolted together was a tremendous task for the men to handle." Early in the war, new hose was available, much lighter and suitable for discharge only. Related to the author by Bob James, chief machinist mate on Kaskaskia from October 1940 to November 1945, Ltr 11 August 1992. James knows of what he speaks since he was employed by the Boston Woven Hose and Rubber Company, one of the premier suppliers of such hose, before being called to active duty in 1941.

6. Details of the "broadside" method described herein are based on the information contained in the Fueling at Sea Instructions.

7. Ibid., 1.

8. Dankers and Hunley, "The Technical Effect of Logistics Development on Modern Replenishment-at-Sea Ships," 83.

9. DANFS, vol. 3, 260.

10. This was the Third Fleet when commanded by Halsey. Spruance and Halsey alternated command of this, the largest of U.S. naval forces. While one was conducting operations at sea, the other, located in the rear with his staff, was planning the next operation.

11. ComServPac to CincPac via ComFifthFlt, Secret Ltr Serial No. 00387, 20 October 1944, as cited in "History of Service Force," 712.

12. Ibid.

13. Morison, History, vol. 14, 8.

14. Rear Adm. Beary, Op Plan 2-45, 9 March 1945, as cited by Morison, History, vol. 14, 158.

15. Goralski and Freeburg, Oil and War, list the total as 23,865 barrels per day average (see appendix 14). This would equate to 8,710,725 barrels a year, less than the fuel oil delivered at sea by Task Group 50.8 during this period.

16. U.S. Maritime Commission, "History of Service Force," 317.

Chapter 19. Under Two Flags

1. In September and October 1944, the Third Fleet's fast carriers expended approximately 10,000 tons of ammunition, mostly aviation bombs, in support of the Leyte invasion.

2. Miller, "Stand By for Shotline," 2.

3. Miller, Hammett, and Murphy, "The Development of the U.S. Navy Underway Replenishment Fleet," 4; Morison, History, vol. 14, 8-9; Carter, Beans, Bullets, and Black Oil, 357; Bussey, "Skillful Technique Developed in Replenishment at Sea," 31.

4. Carter, Beans, Bullets, and Black Oil, 358.

5. Ibid., 355-57.

6. Proximity fuzed shells (3-inch and 5-inch) proved to be the most effective antiaircraft weapon of World War II and were fired in great numbers by the 5"/38 dual-purpose gun, which formed the main armament of all fleet destroyers and antiaircraft cruisers.

7. Chf BuShips (sgnd E. L. Cochrane) to CNO, "USS Dithmarschen (IX-301)--Conversion of Prototype Tanker-Supply Ship," 23 August 1946, File AO-110 (vol. 1), BuShips Gen. Corr. File, 1946, RG 19, NA-Suit.

8. Freeman to Marvin O. Miller, Ltr dated 13 November 1978 (Courtesy Marvin O. Miller).

9. Capt. E. R. Morrissey, Memorandum for Rear Adm. Chapline, 17 April 1946, AO-110 File, 1946.

10. Undated press release, File: USS Conecuh (AOR-110), Ships Histories Branch, NHC.

11. CNO to chf BuShips, "Dithmarschen--Conversion to Prototype Tanker-Supply Ship," 13 August 1946, File AO-110 (vol. 1), BuShips Gen. Corr. File, 1946, RG 19, NA-Suit.

12. Project Order, 25 June 1946; CNO to ComServLant, 15 August 1946; File AO-110 (vol. 1), BuShips Gen. Corr. File, 1946, RG 19, NA-Suit.

13. Isenberg, Shield of the Republic, 96.

14. Chf BuShips (sgnd E. L. Cochrane) to CNO, "USS Dithmarschen (IX-301)--Conversion of Prototype Tanker-Supply Ship," 23 August 1946, File AO-110 (vol. 1), BuShips Gen. Corr. File, 1946, RG 19, NA-Suit.

15. Summary of Service, Biographical File: Rear Adm. Edward E. Paré, OpA-NHC.

16. CO ServRon2 (sgnd E. E. Paré) to CNO (via ComServLant, CinCLant), "USS Dithmarschen--Conversion to Prototype Tanker-Supply Ship; comments on," 13 September 1946, File AO-110 (vol. 1), BuShips Gen. Corr. File, 1946, RG 19, NA-Suit.

17. CinCLant (sgnd Marc A. Mitscher) to CNO, 7 October 1946, File AO-110 (vol. 1), BuShips Gen. Corr. File, 1946, RG 19, NA-Suit.

18. The official date is taken from DANFS, vol. 2, 160, although BuShips records indicate the ship may have been reclassified on 30 August 1946.

19. Chf BuShips to CO Philadelphia NY, 3 October 1946, File AO-110 (vol. 1), BuShips Gen. Corr. File, 1946, RG 19, NA-Suit.

20. CNO, "Report of the Conference on Mobile Logistic Support Convened 28 April 1952," Enclosure (6), Report of Committee No. 2, Collection: Command Files Post 1 January 1946, File: CNO 1952, OpA-NHC.

21. Report of telephone conversation of 14 January 1953, BuShips Gen. Corr. File, 1953, File AOR-110, RG 19, NA-Suit.

22. Mason Freeman to author, Ltr 25 May 1994.

23. Ibid.

24. Freeman to Miller, 13 November 1978.

25. Mason Freeman to author, Ltr 16 March 1994.

26. Rear Adm. E. P. Southwick, commander of Service Squadron 2, considered Commander Freeman so essential to the success of the project that he extended his tour as Conecuh's captain "through the critical period" scheduled for the next six months.

27. Telephone interview with Mason Freeman, 19 March 1994.

28. Freeman to Miller, 13 November 1978.

29. Brooks, "Acorns and Ideas: How Today's Multi-Product Replenishment Ships Started," 850.

30. Endorsement of ComServForSixthFlt conference, Ltr of 7 June 1954, as quoted in Freeman to Miller, 13 November 1978.

31. Freeman to author, interview of 19 March 1994.

32. ComServRon 2 (sgnd E. P. Southwick) to chf Naval Personnel, "Subj: USS Conecuh (AOR-110); Command of," 23 November 1953 (Courtesy Mason Freeman, San Diego, Calif.).

33. In my opinion, the following indicates the leadership qualities exhibited by Admiral Freeman. "If you have people with capability and the will to make things work, you will" (Freeman to author, interview of 3 March 1994).

34. DANFS, vol. 2, 160.

Chapter 20. The Korean War Experience and the Neosho Class

1. U.S. Maritime Commission Statistical Summary of Shipbuilding under the U.S. Maritime Commission during World War II, Table B-3, 41.

2. Isenberg, Shield of the Republic, 695.

3. Ibid., 733.

4. During the first six months of war, Task Force 77 consisted of from one to four Essex-class carriers deploying three basic aircraft types: AD-2 Sky Raider, F4U Corsair, and F9F Panther.

5. Field, United States Naval Operations--Korea, 378.

6. Skiera, Aircraft Carriers in Peace and War, 159.

7. Miller, "Mobile Logistic Support for Aircraft Carriers," 55.

8. ComPacFlt, "Interim Evaluation Report No. 1," 25 June to 15 November 1950, Supporting Operations Section, Logistics, 1248, U.S. Pacific Fleet Operations in the Korean War, OpA-NHC.

9. Ibid., 8, 1247-49.

10. Miller et al., "The Development of the U.S. Navy Underway Replenishment Fleet," 5.

11. CNO, "Report of the Conference on Mobile Logistic Support Convened 28 April 1952," 1-2.

12. "Report of Committee No. 2 on Mobile Logistic Support," 1-2.

13. "SERVPAC Comments on Underway Replenishment Material," enclosure to CNO, "Report of the Conference on Mobile Logistic Support Convened 28 April 1952."

14. Ibid.

15. DANFS, vol. 5, 42.

16. Dankers and Hunley, "The Technical Effect of Logistics Development on Modern Replenishment-At-Sea Ships," 84.

17. Ibid.

18. "Report of Committee No. 2 on Mobile Logistic Support," 3.

19. Bussey, "Skillful Technique Developed in Replenishment at Sea," 31; Dankers and Hunley, "The Technical Effect of Logistics Development on Modern Replenishment-At-Sea Ships," 83-84.

20. Miller, Hammett, and Murphy, "The Development of the U.S. Navy Underway Replenishment Fleet," 6.

21. Miller, "Mobile Logistic Support for Aircraft Carriers," 53; Miller, "The Ram Tensioner Story," 23.

22. Miller, "Mobile Logistic Support for Aircraft Carriers," 54.

Chapter 21. The Fast Combat-support Ship and Improved Techniques for Transfer at Sea

1. Captain Paré first commanded the fueling group at sea in early 1944 while assigned as chief of staff to Captain Gray of ServRon 8. He commanded Task Group 50.17 during the Marianas campaign and was chief of staff and aide to ComServRon 6 until April 1945 when he took command of Macon (CA-132).

2. Capt. Edward E. Paré, "Mobile Fleet Support," Lecture delivered 16 September 1947, Naval War College, Newport, R.I., HC-NWC.

3. Paré, Individual Biographical Files, OpA-NHC.

4. Brooks, "Acorns and Ideas," 850.

5. Mason Freeman (CO of Conecuh while these tests were conducted), telephone interview with author, 19 March 1994.

6. Brooks, "Acorns and Ideas," 851.

7. Ibid.

8. Miller, "The Ram Tensioner Story," 24-25. Miller, a young engineer at the time, was designated to head the group, a job that he would continue to hold for the next four decades!

9. BuShips, Ltr of 21 December 1956, as cited by CNO Ser 698P40, 3 July 1957. Courtesy Marvin O. Miller, Naval Ship Weapon Systems Engineering System, Port Hueneme, Calif. Cited hereafter as "Miller files."

10. "All time spent in replenishing was time lost in combat. Sometimes it was most important that the carriers being replenished should get back into their combat areas as soon as they possibly could. This is when I had impressed on me the value of time" (Arleigh Burke as cited by Miller, Hammett, and Murphy, "The Development of the U.S. Navy Underway Replenishment Fleet," 7). Admiral Burke, it will be recalled, had commanded the Mugford in 1939 during the station-keeping tests with Chester.

11. CNO Ser 698P40, 3 July 1957, Miller files.

12. Marvin O. Miller, "Defining the Underway Replenishment Problem," 1 (unpublished manuscript furnished the author, courtesy Marvin O. Miller).

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid., 2-3.

15. Miller, Hammett, and Murphy, "The Development of the U.S. Navy Underway Replenishment Fleet," 7.

16. Dankers and Hunley, "The Technical Effect of Logistics Development on Modern Replenishment-at-Sea Ships," 87.

17. Hoof, "Design of FAST Combat Support Ship AOE," 14.

18. Brooks, "Acorns and Ideas," caption, 852.

19. Camden (AOE-2) is estimated to have cost approximately $70 million.

20. Miller, "The Stream Sliding Block Story," 6-7.

21. Ibid.

22. For details, see Miller, "The Ram Tensioner Story."

23. Miller, "The Stream Sliding Block Story," 17.

24. Miller et al., "The Development of the U.S. Navy Underway Replenishment Fleet," 10.

25. Miller, "The Ram Tensioner Story," 31.

26. Weintraub, "Ship-to-Ship Probe Fueling," 133-34.

27. Ibid.

28. Increased flow, 50 percent greater than previously achieved for a given head, was another, unanticipated advantage of the new system.

Chapter 22. "Jumboization," AORs and the War in Southeast Asia

1. Gillette, "USS Waccamaw--A New Oiler in Part," 141. Although Gillette estimated the replacement cost at $45 million, the next class of oilers actually cost less than $30 million per ship.

2. Miller, "Stand By for Shotline," 9.

3. Moore, ed., Jane's Fighting Ships, 1985-1986, 762; Miller, "Mobile Logistic Support for Aircraft Carriers," 59.

4. Ibid.; Miller, "Stand By for Shotline," 9-10.

5. Ibid.

6. The information in this and succeeding paragraphs has been summarized from Hooper, Mobility, Support, Endurance: A Story of Naval Operational Logistics in the Vietnam War, 1965-1968, 46-53.

7. "Informal Report of USS Camden (AOE-2) 1968-1969 WESTPAC Deployment," in Miller, Underway Replenishment of Naval Ships, 325-29.

8. Miller, "Mobile Logistic Support for Aircraft Carriers," 55-56.

Chapter 23. Downsizing and Austerity in the Decade after Vietnam

1. "Marine Boondoggle," 32.

2. Truver, "The Military Sealift Command's Build and Charter Program for Nine Sealift-Class Tankers," 33.

3. Lars E. Anderson, "Build and Charter," Sealift (undated photocopy), 18.

4. Joseph F. Yarso, "Decline of the Seventies," Naval Engineering and American Sea Power, 342; "Marine Boondoggle," 32.

5. NYT, 20 September 1970.

6. Anderson, "Build and Charter."

7. Truver, "The Military Sealift Command's Build and Charter Program for Nine Sealift-Class Tankers," 33; Jane's Fighting Ships, 1985-1986, 781.

8. "Bravo Zulu Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force: May Marks 20th Anniversary of Service," 1ff.

9. Miller, "Stand By for Shotline," 10-11.

10. Ibid.

11. "Bravo Zulu Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force: May Marks 20th Anniversary of Service," 1ff.; Sylvia Rosa, "The Experiment Began in 1972," 1ff.

12. Ibid.

13. Joseph F. Yarso, "Decline of the Seventies," in Naval Engineering and American Seapower, 356. Quoting Adm.Hyman G.Rickover, "The Role of Engineering in the Navy," Speech given to the National Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI, 30 August 1974.

14. Ibid.

15. Moore, ed., Jane's Fighting Ships, 1986-1987, 763.

16. Twin shafts are highly desirable for navy oilers as they provide enhanced maneuverability--an important feature when conducting replenishment under way--and increase the ship's ability to operate in the event of a casualty or battle damage.

17. Murphy, "Combination Fueling and Cargo Stream Station," 74.

18. Murphy, "Combination Fueling and Cargo Stream Station," 84; "Forty Years of UNREP Development," UNREP Newsletter, Spring 1992, unpaginated.

Chapter 24. Resurgence in the Reagan Years and the Gulf War

1. Love, History of the U.S. Navy, 1942-1991, 719.

2. Morison, "The Reaganavy," 127.

3. Kaiser companies built the Hoover, Bonneville, and Grand Coulee Dams and the San Francisco Bay Bridge.

4. "What Is a 'Henry J,'" 3-4.

5. Stein, Reid, and Sumner, "Overview of the Navy's New Fleet Oiler (T-AO-187 Class) from the Operator's Perspective," 5.

6. Jane's Fighting Ships, 1986-1987, 780.

7. Stein, Reid, and Sumner, "Overview of the Navy's New Fleet Oiler," 6.

8. Congressional Budget Office, "Issues and Options for the Navy's Combat Logistics Force," in Underway Replenishment of Naval Ships, 97-98.

9. Ibid., 99.

10. Each of the CVBGs usually consisted of one carrier, one or two Aegis cruisers, several escorts, and one or two combat logistic ships: either one AOE, one AOR, or an oiler/ammunition ship combination.

11. Walsh, "Joshua Humphreys First MSC Ship to Be Integral Unit of Battle Group," 1ff.

12. Friedman, Desert Victory, 318.

13. Ibid., 204.

Epilogue

1. In Fighting Ships by Arch Whitehouse, 325-26.

--320--

Contents


Transcribed and formatted for HTML by Larry Jewell & Patrick Clancey, HyperWar Foundation