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.
Formerly the Anthony of the Fletcher-class, this ship has been loaned by the United States to West Germany. The German Federal Navy is constructing twelve new 2,800-ton destroyers. Completion is expected by 1963.
Naval Career Motivation
(See pages 100-103, October, 1958 Proceedings) (See pages 102-106, August, 1958 Proceedings)
Commander Seymour Dombroff, usn.— The motivation of midshipmen and junior officers toward naval careers has been and continues to be a challenge to me, particularly since I sandwiched in duty at an NROTC unit between two tours of command at sea. In his letter the young officer remarked, “I think that there should be a great deal more emphasis placed on the naval career in NROTC establishments than is now being done.” I have heard this statement before and have seen it applied not only to the NROTC but to the Naval Academy as well.
I cannot speak for midshipmen training in general, but I do know that at every NROTC unit with which I have come in contact, career motivation was the fundamental binder that held together the whole curriculum and influenced the conduct of the entire program.
If the junior officer reporting for his first duty assignment has been given the proper career incentive as a midshipman, can we then assume that this well-oriented young officer will select the naval service as his career? Can we acceptably predict the future “career desire” of a junior officer from his performance or aptitude as a midshipman? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then it is time that there be a re-evaluation of the techniques for career indoctrination, both at the midshipman and junior officer levels.
Recently I was on duty at an NROTC unit and came to know two classes of midshipmen quite well, by virtue of being their adviser as well as their instructor. In view of the meticulous and constant aptitude evaluation required to be made on every midshipman, not only on the campus but on the summer cruises, I believed that I could fairly well predict what the career potential would be of every member of these two classes.
My success as a predictor was proven to be quite limited. A midshipman who stood very high in aptitude now is a malcontent. He is disgusted with his job and with the service. On the other hand, an affluent playboy, who merely accepted naval training and was next to the low man in aptitude, today thinks the Navy is the greatest thing that ever was invented! He is first lieutenant of a destroyer and his commanding officer tells me he never stops working. As for the others, they have been happy or dissatisfied in varying degrees, but there has been little correlation with their earlier aptitude performance as midshipmen.
If my experience represents a valid conclusion, then a re-appraisal of career indoctrination is in order. Motivation toward a career >n the naval service must not terminate when the midshipman accepts his first commission. For the officer who enters the service with an open mind either toward staying in or getting out, his attitude toward his first assignment is of prime importance in influencing his decision.
In many cases, where junior officers are unhappy with their lot, the command is not utilizing one of the unique assets of naval service, that of ego satisfaction. Ego satisfaction pays off most handsomely in command, but is not limited to this billet. The young OOD underway has it in full measure, and so does the young head of department and the division officer. Too often the ensign is sloughed off with thankless tasks and collateral duties. “Give it to George,” and George will soon be getting out. This does not mean that the junior officer should be pampered or be assigned duties just to swell his ego, but responsible officers should be aware that a young officer relates his first assignment to the Navy as a whole and his decision to stay or go depends upon how he likes his job. The command should exert influence toward career motivation not by quoting relative pay scales and Tinge benefits, but exercising judicious leadership toward getting the junior officer to feel that he is a significant member of the naval team. No matter how well and thoroughly this indoctrination is accomplished, the final decision will be reached by the individual officer during his first tour of duty. Proper career introduction as a midshipman should prepare him to place his initial duty in the proper perspective and eventually to make a sound career decision.
Canadian Harbor Defense Forts
(See pages 92-101, August. 1958 Proceedings)
Irving Parmeter, Three Mile Bay, New York.—Lieutenant Kirchner’s instructive article on American harbor defense forts has no mention of works once protecting forts on the Great Lakes.
Before Canada and the United States ended all thought of conflict, defenses of Kingston,
Ontario, included interesting examples of an unusual harbor protection system, not duplicated in the United States. These were Martello towers, of which several examples remain.
Martello towers derived their name from Myrtillo Point, Corsica, where they first came to the attention of the British navy. These Corsican towers successfully resisted an attack by a 74-gun ship of the line and a 32-gun frigate. Great Britain then duplicated the towers along the English coast. When Canadian defenses were improved, Martello towers were installed at Halifax, Quebec, and Kingston.
These towers are circular stone structures, the stone of a strength then sufficient to resist the heaviest ordnance of the time. The structures were fifty feet in diameter and the roofs formed gun decks, with additional ordnance mounted in embrasures. Kingston has five Martello towers; one in Macdonald Park, one at Point Henry, one at Point Frederick, one in the harbor, and one at Cedar Island.
Smart Military Appearance
(See pages 122, 124, August, 1958 Proceedings)
Joseph P. Quinn, GM 1, usn—We cannot blame any particular rank or rate for the slovenly attired naval personnel we see in our organization today. I do not believe we need another board to enforce U. S. Navy Uniform Regulations, but rather that all we require to start the smart and neat military appearance program are the recent graduates of the Naval Academy, NROTC, and Officer Candidate School to set and maintain high standards.
Uniform Regulations were written for all naval personnel. They distinctly say what will be worn, when, where, and how. Most commanding officers dress in immaculate uniform. Junior officers should set a corresponding example when they stand in front of their divisions and demand smartness of dress.
In a professional sense, the quarterdeck is the most sacred part of a ship, an area designated by the commanding officer where official and ceremonial functions are held. The very first rule for all personnel should be to appear on the quarterdeck only when wearing the complete uniform of the day.
I have seen in the quarterdeck area green braid, dirty and unpressed work khakies, rolled-up sleeves, unshined shoes, frayed hats, and dirty piping. I have also seen a disinterested officer of the deck permit personnel to wear these uniforms ashore.
The entire officer class as of 1957 and 1958 must set the example of proper military appearance. Let all of us, enlisted and officer personnel, support an intensive uniform drive and share in the benefits of naval pride which high standards of personnel appearance will help develop and maintain.
Policy of Farrell Lines Incorporated
(See pages 102-104, September, 1958 Proceedings)
Rear Admiral George Wauchope, usnr, Executive Vice President, Farrell Lines Incorporated.—In behalf of Farrell Lines
Incorporated, I wish to restate that it is and will continue to be the policy of Farrell Lines Incorporated and its management that the safety of our passengers, crews, vessels and cargo is the paramount consideration in the engagements of our vessels. That policy is implemented by express instructions to our masters and navigators to obey, as obligatory, the Rules for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea, and to exercise prudent navigation. The maintenance of schedules by our steamers is, therefore, secondary to any matters involving safety of life and property at sea. . . . That steamers must navigate with degrees of caution under any given state of existing circumstances and conditions must necessarily rest on the sound discretion and professional judgment of licensed shipmasters and navigators. They are the only ones in a position to properly invoke the requisite discretion and sound judgment to comply with the Rules.
The Lady is Identified
(See page 77, October, 1958 Proceedings)
Commander Barnes Newberry, usnr (ret.), Fort Lauderdale, Florida.—The unidentified lady is none other than the President’s wife, Mrs. Edith Carew Roosevelt. I know, because my father was his Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable Truman H. Newberry of Michigan. [Editor’s note: Mr. Francis M. Holbrook of Panama City, Florida, also identified Mrs. Roosevelt.]
Captain Gainard; Hog Island Ships
(See page 70, July, 1958 Proceedings)
John King, Brighton, Mass.—Captain Gainard was well known and respected in the prewar merchant marine. He was a patient, human and understanding man, capable of coping with the many problems confronting a shipmaster in those days.
One of the outstanding features of the Hog Island ships was their lack of a sheer. They were functional and ugly; bows and sterns seemed to droop, and they appeared humpbacked, as if ready to break up. Main propulsion units were turbine with reduction gearing. The only reciprocating engines on Hogs were steering engines, deck engines, ice machines, dynamos and circulating pumps. The last Hog I recall was operating in 1952 under the Turkish flag. In their day the old Hogs were as unmistakably American as the four- stack destroyers. Even twenty years ago, foreign engineers would talk about the turbine- driven American freighters.
Battleship “Oregon”
(See page 56, February, 1958 Proceedings)
Lieutenant Commander Townsend H. Boyer, usnr (ret.).—In the anecdote “Joint Operations,” Commander Lott has referred to the Oregon as a cruiser, whereas this “bulldog” of the Navy was a battleship. The Oregon received this nickname following her successful cruise during the war from San Francisco to Key West, without mishap.
mac ship
(See page 33, July 1958 Proceedings and page 148, October, 1958 Proceedings)
Howard G. Husted, La Mirada, California.—The unidentified ship pictured in the July Proceedings was neither the USS Hogatt Bay nor a lend lease unit to Britain. The vessel pictured was a British merchant aircraft carrier or MAC ship, a rather unique and interesting type. These ships were developed for convoy protection and defense, the first going into service in April, 1943.
Half-naval, half-merchant, these ships were merchant-manned, cargo-carrying vessels reinforced with a number of ancient but formidable Swordfish aircraft and naval pilots and crews for fighting submarines. Cargo carrying capacity was only slightly reduced by the addition of the flight deck.
Early units were dry cargo hulls carrying grain. Later units were built around tanker hulls. The ship in the July Proceedings was a tanker conversion. Smaller than our CVE, the MAC ships were 466 feet long, of about 8,000 tons displacement, and powered by a single diesel of 3,400 BHP, giving a speed of 13 knots. The grain carriers had an elevator and hangar deck aft. Tanker conversions lacked this feature. These MAC ships are worthy of mention because they comprised one of the many makeshift types of wartime ships.
ENGINEERING RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT DESIGN
MANUFACTURE
Lapel Button
(Twice actual size)
PRECISION OPTICS, ELECTRONIC and SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS
FARRAND
OPTICAL CO., Inc.
BRONX BLVD. & EAST 238th STREET NEW YORK 70, NEW YORK
To Members only: One dollar
Write:
Secretary-Treasurer U. S. Naval Institute Annapolis, Maryland