This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
Lieutenant Commander Joseph Per- nal, U. S. Naval Reserve (Inactive).— In the February issue of the Proceedings I read the interesting article by Commander Fahy on the problem of recruiting technical specialists for the Navy.
The article sheds light on a serious problem that is facing the post-war Navy. But it is hard to agree with the sentiments expressed by the Chief Electronics technician in the article. He states: “I’ve been to the Navy’s technical schools and studied to get this far. In the past year I’ve spent over 300 dollars of my own money for more courses and books to help me in my job. Yet the Chief Boatswain’s Mate over there draws more money than I do, and he can just about write his own name.”
Unfortunately many specialists feel the same way about the “old line” ratings. What they fail to realize is that the “old line” Chiefs are also highly trained and valuable men. They may not know much about electronics, but their knowledge was gained through long years of experience. The Chief Specialists are generally excused from many of the responsibilities that an “old line” Chief has. As the number of Chief Specialists in our Navy continues to grow, so will the load grow on the “old line” Chiefs.
As Commander Fahy has pointed out, the Chief Specialists are very important in our Navy. It is hoped that more of the Chief Specialists will learn to appreciate the important part played by the “old line” Chiefs in our Navy.
E Pluribus Unum
(See page 815, July 1949 Proceedings)
Commander Logan Cresap, U.S.N., (Ret.).—Seeing your comment under the photograph of the U.S.S. Menges on page 815 of the July, 1949 Proceedings, reminds me of the following episode in the First World War.
If my memory serves me correctly, the British had a class of destroyers named after African tribes, and of this group of d'estroy- ers there were two by the names of H.M.S. Zulu and H.M.S. Nubian.
I don’t recall the nature of the disaster which resulted in the following damage, but however it was caused, the Zulu lost her after end and the Nubian lost her forward end. The remaining ends were gotten into port, put into the same drydock, trimmed, and finally put together to form a new destroyer.
The British took the corresponding ends of the respective names and called the ship the Zubian!
Graving Dock at Philadelphia Navy Yard
(See page 578, May 1949 Proceedings)
Commander Cyril Morand, U.S.N.R.— Looking through the May 1949 Naval Institute Proceedings I note on page 578 a photograph of “an early type of graving dock. Constructed at the Philadelphia Navy Yard by BuYds&Docks,” and that “this photograph was taken in 1876.”
For your information this dock, known as No. 1 at the Naval Base, was constructed in 1891 under the superintendence of Naval
Constructor Robert E. Peary, discoverer of the North Pole. According to records at the Base, contract for this structure was awarded 18 February 1889 and was completed 18 March 1891, at a cost of $550,000. It is still in active operation, used for docking smaller vessels, destroyers, submarines, yard craft, etc. The dock is 459' 10" on the floor by 50' width with a depth over the sill of 25' 5".
Its predecessor was the wooden sectional floating drydock transferred from the old Federal St. Navy Yard in 1876, where it was built about 1851. It was abandoned following the completion of the graving dock. This dock was not dissimilar to the sectional floating dock illustrated on the same page (578) in the view of Mare Island Navy Yard.
(Editor’s Note: The information printed under the picture in the May Proceedings was quoted almost verbatim from the description on the back of the original photograph when it was sent us. However, we welcome any corrections or additional information, such as is provided in this contribution.)
A Well Disciplined Merchant Marine
(See page 1467, December 1948 Proceedings, and page 823, July 1949 Proceedings)
Alden W. Gould, Jr.—Lieutenant Crouch’s article relative to the discipline of crews aboard Merchant ships of this nation has finally brought out the “facts of life” of the U. S. Merchant Marine, and I for one was glad to read of it.
There are many seaborne services in this land that employ merchant seamen to man their vessels besides the regular Merchant Service. During the war, officers and enlisted men of the U. S. Coast & Geodetic Survey aboard vessels surveying and charting various coastlines, often under hazardous conditions, were subject to strafing, bombing, and whatnot. These men were civilians, every last one of them, from the ship’s skipper to the lowest scullion; but were they given bonuses for being bombed, torpedoed, . and strafed? No! The personnel of the U. S. Coast & Geodetic Survey at Manila were P.O.W.’s, even though they were civilians. How many merchant seamen were subjected to the same hardships as they, and yet did not make a claim for a bonus for same? The U. S. Department of Commerce is the employer of these men. The individual shipping company is employer of regular seamen.
There is discipline in the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey because it is operated efficiently by commissioned officers and personnel who know their business. They need not have seaman’s papers to enlist for the one year’s tour of duty, as the Federal Government will procure for them the papers that are needed after a regular examination by the U. S. Public Health Service.
Another organization, under the heading of seaborne services, is the U. S. Public Health Service, with its Quarantine Patrol vessels that require seamen. Again there is discipline because of efficient commissioned officers and the willingness of the enlisted men to co-operate.
Another is the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service that employs seamen for its Fisheries Patrol vessel off the coast of New England. There is discipline there also because of the willingness of the ship’s crew to co-operate with the officers on board.
Then there is the largest Merchant Fleet in the world, the U. S. Army Transport Service, formerly under the jurisdiction of the Army Quartermaster Corps, then under Army Transportation Corps, and in 1948 transferred by a special directive of the Secretary of Defense to the U. S..Navy.
This service has a subsidiary, the U. S. Army Harbor Boat Service. The types of craft in the U. S. Army Transport Service range from the lowest barges to the largest transports and hospital ships. Here again the personnel are all civilians in this 15,000 craft fleet. Is there discipline in this service? I’ll say there is! With ships like the U.S.A.T.’s Monterey, Admiral Sims, Admiral Capps, Admiral Eberle, Admiral Rodman, General Hodges, and the Hermitage and others, there had to be discipline among the crew. Every member of the ship’s company held the required U. S. Merchant Marine papers issued by the U. S. Coast Guard, in order to enter the U. S. Army Transport Service and the U. S. Army Harbor Boat Service, but their services along with the Armed Forces (more so than the U. S. Merchant Marine) were never revealed to the public. On my ship, the U. S. Army Transport Admiral E. W. Eberle (P-2), formerly U.S.N. APA No. 123, we had on board a mixture of seamen from the U. S. Maritime Service who were at the last minute detached from the U. S. Maritime Service Training Station, Alameda, California, as well as non-union seamen, and union seamen who couldn’t ship on one of their regular union ships, and, rather than starve ashore, set sail on Army Transport Service Craft. Seamen who also held seamen’s papers of nations such as Canada, Mexico, Newfoundland, were crew members. Even with such a mixture on board, there was discipline. There is discipline on hoard any ship of the Federal Government! We have a Merchant Marine, other Maritime lands have the Merchant Navy. Why? I do not know. From talks with men who have worn the various uniforms of the U. S. Merchant Marine, U. S. Coast & Geodetic Survey, U. S. Maritime Service, and my own U. S. Army Transport Service and U. S. Army Harbor Boat Service, I find many men and boys are content under supervision. Union minded men will say “No,” but how many seamen in the U. S. today would sail ships under U. S. flag if the Federal Government aided by the U. S. Coast Guard supervised them? I would say at least two-thirds of them. No one wants too much supervision, I agree, but discipline is a must. I say, “Make the U. S. Merchant Marine a more disciplined outfit”’ a sort of active reserve (more than it is now), and place efficient crews and Naval trained Officers on board.
Make the U. S. Merchant Marine the U. S. Merchant Navy!
Mooring to a Buoy
(See page 804, July 1949 Proceedings)
Chief Boatswain C. M. Robinett, U.S.N. (Ret.).—The article “A Method to Expedite Mooring to a Buoy” by Captain W. F. RiggS, Jr., in the July 1949 Proceedings, outlines an excellent solution to what is frequently a vexing problem. Most of us are familiar with the old buoy mooring situation where the men on the buoy struggle to get the shackle into position, but the cussed thing always seems to be just a couple of feet from the ring.
This method of mooring is not new. When the writer was the boatswain of the Raleigh in the late thirties and early forties, an almost identical rig was often used with great success. The average time for completing the moor after the ship was in position was about three minutes.
Memory being what it is, it is difficult to say now whether or not the idea originated in the Raleigh. However, the writer, together with Lieutenant Commander T. C. Aylward and the Raleigh’s forecastle boatswain’s mates, worked out the details of the method, which was regularly used in San Diego and also a few times at Pearl Harbor.
In the Raleigh rig, the connection of the trolley wire to the buoy was expedited by the use of a 5/8 inch wire strap, the bight of which was seized in the eye of the mooring wire. In one end of the strap was spliced a strong snap-hook. With this rig it was a comparatively simple and quick operation for a member of the boat detail to pass one part of the strap through the buoy ring and engage the snap-hook in the eye of the other end of the strap. Occasionally a small shackle was substituted for the hook, this having the advantage of being stronger; but, on the other hand, having the disadvantage of being a bit slower.
One disadvantage of the entire method is that the use of a wire is dangerous to forecastle personnel if an excessive strain is thrown on the line. Experience in the Raleigh proved that it was sometimes advisable, especially in a strong breeze or in a swift current, to run a seven-inch manila hawser from the capstan on the opposite side as both a preventer and a helper for the wire. By using two boats in this case, little delay will be experienced and the added safety contributes to peace of mind.
This comment is not written for the purpose of taking credit from Captain Riggs for his independent development of the method. The writer does not remember who brought the idea to the Raleigh forecastle, but is under the impression that it has been used also by the Detroit.
Captain Riggs has rendered a valuable service by sharing his knowledge of the method through the pages of the Proceedings. If we who used it earlier had been as thoughtful of our fellow seamen as he has been, many commanding officers, first lieutenants, and boatswains might have been spared numerous anxious and embarrassing moments when mooring ship to a buoy.