Quality of US ships to UK in WW2 ?

McArmalite

I once heard that the ships that the US sold to the UK before America entered WW2 in return for free use of British ports in the Caribeann etc were actually ships of very poor quality and half of them were not put into service after arrival in England. Any truth in it ?

Morlar

I think the early liberty ships were basically glorified meccano kits, not that reliable and at least one of them split in half mid-voyage.

Later modifications meant to the designs and manufacturing processes meant that they were far more reliable and (I can't remember where I heard it from) I believe some might even still be in use.

FiSe

The quality wasn't as important as the numbers... Great Britain got motley collection of WWI, civvie and old merchant ships.
They needed boats and they needed those immediately.

Some of the Liberty ships were in use into 80's and some of them are in use still /?/ Have seen some article somewhere on the web a while ago with photographs of the visiting ships and their description and there was a note about it, was it about Wicklow harbour?
Anyway if someone's interested there's a friend just click away called Google.

getz

McArmalite wrote: »

I once heard that the ships that the US sold to the UK before America entered WW2 in return for free use of British ports in the Caribeann etc were actually ships of very poor quality and half of them were not put into service after arrival in England. Any truth in it ?

i sailed on the salacia a liberty ship in the 1960s it was built by the americans for one voyage only in the 1940s, it took two weeks to weld together and dident go to scrap untill the late 60s, liberty boats are easy to spot because they had a straight bow ,the one i sailed on was a motor vessel, not as most of the ships of that time steam.

cyrusdvirus

I would've thought the OP was referring to the Town Class destroyers rather than the Liberty ships.

These ships were not much liked, needed modernisation, and weren't all that suitable as U-Boat hunters.

BUT they were good enough to do the job at the time. It is true that some needed more modernisation than others, but 50 ships is still 50 ships....

McArmalite

FiSe wrote: »

The quality wasn't as important as the numbers... Great Britain got motley collection of WWI, civvie and old merchant ships.
They needed boats and they needed those immediately.

Some of the Liberty ships were in use into 80's and some of them are in use still /?/ Have seen some article somewhere on the web a while ago with photographs of the visiting ships and their description and there was a note about it, was it about Wicklow harbour?
Anyway if someone's interested there's a friend just click away called Google.

"The quality wasn't as important as the numbers... Great Britain got motley collection of WWI, civvie and old merchant ships. They needed boats and they needed those immediately." Yes they needed boats immediately but since possibly half of them were just about good for making it across the Atlantic and little else, the whole thing was a dodgy deal. Bit like a second hand car salesman giving you a loan to buy a car off him and then you find out that half the parts are not in working order but your still stuck with repaying the loan ??

gatecrash wrote: »

I would've thought the OP was referring to the Town Class destroyers rather than the Liberty ships.

These ships were not much liked, needed modernisation, and weren't all that suitable as U-Boat hunters.

BUT they were good enough to do the job at the time. It is true that some needed more modernisation than others, but 50 ships is still 50 ships....

Yes gatecrasher, I was referring to the " ships that the US sold to the UK before America entered WW2 in return for free use of British ports in the Caribeann etc were actually ships of very poor quality and half of them were not put into service after arrival in England. ". Whether they were called Town Class destroyers or what I don't know.

cyrusdvirus

The Town Class destroyers (so named as they were named after towns in both Britian and the U.S.) were the ones transferred for the bases in the Carribbean.

The lend lease program was a different program, from a different agreement

FiSe

McArmalite wrote: »

"The quality wasn't as important as the numbers... Great Britain got motley collection of WWI, civvie and old merchant ships. They needed boats and they needed those immediately." Yes they needed boats immediately but since possibly half of them were just about good for making it across the Atlantic and little else, the whole thing was a dodgy deal. Bit like a second hand car salesman giving you a loan to buy a car off him and then you find out that half the parts are not in working order but your still stuck with repaying the loan ??

Yes gatecrasher, I was referring to the " ships that the US sold to the UK before America entered WW2 in return for free use of British ports in the Caribeann etc were actually ships of very poor quality and half of them were not put into service after arrival in England. ". Whether they were called Town Class destroyers or what I don't know.

Well, to be honest, I was a bit suspicious when I saw this thread, but I thought that it's just paranoid me... :rolleyes:
But, I completely do miss a point which you are trying to make with this thread. You don't know what type of ships they were, but you know that '...possibly half of them were just about good for making it across the Atlantic and little else...'
Are you advocating for the 'Brits' here

Now, when I've said numbers were more important then quality, I meant it.
I doubt, that RN didn't know about the state of those crafts before the deal was done. But, I can imagine that re-equip and repair these ships was cheaper and quicker option, than build them from scratch.

McArmalite

FiSe wrote: »

Well, to be honest, I was a bit suspicious when I saw this thread, but I thought that it's just paranoid me... :rolleyes:

Understandable given McArmalite's usual form

But, I completely do miss a point which you are trying to make with this thread. You don't know what type of ships they were, but you know that '...possibly half of them were just about good for making it across the Atlantic and little else...'

That's why I made the posting and used the word possibly. I'm just trying to get to a clearer, more accurate knowledge on the quality of these ships.

Are you advocating for the 'Brits' here

No, heavens forbid !!!! Messing aside, the reason for my posting and the quality of the ships etc is that the American/UK special relationship, " we're true buddies and all in this together " sort of thing regarding WW2 is, well basically, a load of nonsense. Govts/politicans ( most especially our own ) are not 'nice guys'. They often make an act seem charitable/decent etc when in fact their are alterior motives for their policies. So what I'm to get at regarding the qulaity of the ships, is that Uncle Sam drove a hard ( and dodgy ) bargain on hard up britain, ( who if the roles were reversed would have done the same thing).

Now, when I've said numbers were more important then quality, I meant it. I doubt, that RN didn't know about the state of those crafts before the deal was done. But, I can imagine that re-equip and repair these ships was cheaper and quicker option, than build them from scratch.

Well I suppose we'll never know. Anyway it was a dodgy deal.

Manic Moran

The four-pipers were pretty obsolescent at the time as well, and the sea-keeping wasn't the greatest. But, there were plenty of them, and they had guns and depth charges, so they were better than nothing.

NTM

Fratton Fred

Manic Moran wrote: »

The four-pipers were pretty obsolescent at the time as well, and the sea-keeping wasn't the greatest. But, there were plenty of them, and they had guns and depth charges, so they were better than nothing.

NTM

I think that was the whole point. they were capable of crossing the atlantic and dropping depth charges, therefore they were of use to the RN and RCN.

They may have been obsolete and disliked by their crews, but they were all that was available at the time, so it was a case of them or nothing else.

Delancey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_class_destroyer


This article has a wealth of info on those old 4 piper destroyers , essentially what others have said is true - poor ships , hated by their crews but better than nothing

Tony EH

McArmalite wrote: »

I once heard that the ships that the US sold to the UK before America entered WW2 in return for free use of British ports in the Caribeann etc were actually ships of very poor quality and half of them were not put into service after arrival in England. Any truth in it ?

If you're talking about the 50 old WWI 4 stacks that the Yanks hocked off the Britian, then yes, you're correct. They were crap and IIRC weren't used except as "sinkers" to block harbours from U-Boat attck.

The later "Liberty" ships weren't of great quality either, but they weren't supposed to be. They were designed to be massed produced, not to be luxury liners. But travelling in one was a test I'm sure.

The main concept of the Liberty ship, was the same as most US thinking during WWII...i.e. numbers. Flood the area with your equipment and attrition will win out, be it B-24's, Shermans or Liberty ships. An enemy, whose numbers are limited just cannot compete.

McArmalite

Tony EH wrote: »

If you're talking about the 50 old WWI 4 stacks that the Yanks hocked off the Britian, then yes, you're correct. They were crap and IIRC weren't used except as "sinkers" to block harbours from U-Boat attck.

The later "Liberty" ships weren't of great quality either, but they weren't supposed to be. They were designed to be massed produced, not to be luxury liners. But travelling in one was a test I'm sure.

The main concept of the Liberty ship, was the same as most US thinking during WWII...i.e. numbers. Flood the area with your equipment and attrition will win out, be it B-24's, Shermans or Liberty ships. An enemy, whose numbers are limited just cannot compete.

Yuo make a good point there regarding the Sherman's etc, quantity rather than quality. Still, they made some good stuff too, the Mustang was a hell of a fighter.

Delancey

The main concept of the Liberty ship, was the same as most US thinking during WWII...i.e. numbers. Flood the area with your equipment and attrition will win out, be it B-24's, Shermans or Liberty ships. An enemy, whose numbers are limited just cannot compete.[/quote]


As Stalin once said : '' Quantity has a Quality all of its own ''

getz

Tony EH wrote: »

If you're talking about the 50 old WWI 4 stacks that the Yanks hocked off the Britian, then yes, you're correct. They were crap and IIRC weren't used except as "sinkers" to block harbours from U-Boat attck.

The later "Liberty" ships weren't of great quality either, but they weren't supposed to be. They were designed to be massed produced, not to be luxury liners. But travelling in one was a test I'm sure.

The main concept of the Liberty ship, was the same as most US thinking during WWII...i.e. numbers. Flood the area with your equipment and attrition will win out, be it B-24's, Shermans or Liberty ships. An enemy, whose numbers are limited just cannot compete.

as i said in a early post the liberty ship i sailed in in 1957 was was a welded together,[ no rivits ]when crossing the north atlantic in a gale it used to flex and bend, lots of fun for a 17 year old but hell for the old timers,the boat was owned by donaldson line, and was called the salacia, many of these liberty boats if not sunk by uboats had a nasty habit of braking in half.

FiSe

McArmalite wrote: »

Yuo make a good point there regarding the Sherman's etc, quantity rather than quality. Still, they made some good stuff too, the Mustang was a hell of a fighter.

Mustang -as we know it - was half British invention

Tony EH

McArmalite wrote: »

Yuo make a good point there regarding the Sherman's etc, quantity rather than quality. Still, they made some good stuff too, the Mustang was a hell of a fighter.

Well, the Sherman was a well built tank, don't get me wrong. Likewise the general quality of US aircraft was of a good standard too. Even if there was a B-24 leaving the factory floor every hour, they were still of very good quality.

BTW, the P-51 only became a truly great fighter once the Brits stuck a Rolls Royce merlin into her. If she had stayed with the Allison, it would have remained an average to decent plane at best.

But even so, by the time the P-51 reached the ETO in numbers, the USAF massively outnumbered the Jagdwaffe by a considerable amount.

It was the heaviest obsticle that Germany faced in terms of enemy advantage, i.e. no matter how much of anything they could produce, their enemies were always going to produce much more than they could compete with.

Tony EH

getz wrote: »

as i said in a early post the liberty ship i sailed in in 1957 was was a welded together,[ no rivits ]when crossing the north atlantic in a gale it used to flex and bend, lots of fun for a 17 year old but hell for the old timers,the boat was owned by donaldson line, and was called the salacia, many of these liberty boats if not sunk by uboats had a nasty habit of braking in half.

I think Erich Topp stated that he thought the Liberty ships were death traps. They were very unstable (no quality assurance there!), luckly not to be full of leaks and usually overloaded.

One torpedo was enough

Even on the empty return journeys they were an incredibly difficult boat to endure. I can only imagine what crossing the North Atlantic in winter time could have been like for the crews.

Still, they got the job done either way.

But even without the Liberty ships reaching such massive numbers, the U-Boats didn't even come close to sinking the amount they needed...regardless of what Churchill said. By the time the Liberty ships were crossing the Atlantic in massive convoys, the tonnage war had become completely un-winable for the Kriegsmarine.

cyrusdvirus

Tony EH wrote: »

If you're talking about the 50 old WWI 4 stacks that the Yanks hocked off the Britian, then yes, you're correct. They were crap and IIRC weren't used except as "sinkers" to block harbours from U-Boat attck.

And you're wrong......

Most of the Town Class survuved the war, being sold for scrap from 1945 onwards. 1 (HMS Campbeltown Ex Uss Buchanan) was used in the Raid on St Nazaire. A few were disposed of in sink-ex's after the war, and some (9) were lost in combat.

They weren't well liked, but performed vital work as convoy escorts.

The later "Liberty" ships weren't of great quality either, but they weren't supposed to be. They were designed to be massed produced, not to be luxury liners. But travelling in one was a test I'm sure.

Travelling in any ship would have been a test at the time. It is well documented that the 2 Queens carried in excess of 15000 men....PER SAILING

Tony EH

Well, perhaps the fact that there weren't well liked and the British had to modify them extensively has coloured the general percerption of them. But, as far as I know, the majority of them weren't used, or at least weren't used after a period of time and a good few were hocked off to Russia.

At the end of the day anyway, the deal was not really about the boats at all...it was about getting America into the war in a very real way.

Here's the list of ships...

DD - 132 Aaron Ward
Renamed HMS Castieton, Broken up in 1947
DD - 184 Abbot
Renamed HMS Charlestown, Broken up in 1947
DD - 193 Abel P Upshur
Renamed HMS Clare, Broken up in 1945
DD - 258 Aulick
Renamed HMS Burnham, Broken up in 1947
DD - 131 Buchanan
Most widely known of the 50, Renamed HMS Campbeltown she was chosen for the raid on St. Nazaire France. Packed with explosives she was rammed into the gate of the Normandie Dry Dock in St. Nazaire and when the charges went off the dry dock gate was blown off and the dock was rendered unusable to the Germans. The Normandie Dry Dock was the only dry dock outside of Germany that was large enough to accommodate the German Battleship Tirpitz, Keep her maintained and repaired for Atlantic Operations. As a result of the raid and destruction of the Campbeltown, the Tirpitz never left Norwegian waters and was never able to operate in the Atlantic. Campbeltown was destroyed in the raid on March 28 1942
DD - 269 Baily
Renamed HMS Reading, Broken up in 1945
DD - 256 Bancroft
To Canada, renamed HMCS St. Francis. She was lost in 1945
DD - 197 Branch
Renamed HMS Beverley, She was lost in 1943
DD -140 Claxton
Renamed HMS Salisbury, Broken up in 1944
DD - 72 Conner
Renamed HMS Leeds, Broken up in 1947
DD - 167 Cowell
Renamed HMS Brighton, To Russia in July 1944, renamed Jarkyi. Returned to Britain in 1949 and broken up
DD - 70 Conway
renamed HMS Lewes, Scuttled October 12 1945
DD - 134 Crowninshield
Renamed HMS Chelsea, To Russia in July 1944. Renamed Derskyi, Broken up in 1949
DD - 185 Doran
Renamed HMS St. Marys, Broken up in 1945
DD - 265 Edwards
Renamed HMS Buxton, To Canada in 1943 as HMCS Buxton broken up in 1946
DD - 78 Evans
Renamed HMS Mansfield, Broken up in 1945
DD - 93 Fairfax
Renamed HMS Richmond, To Russia in July 1944. Renamed Jivodchyi, Broken up in 1949
DD - 169 Foote
Renamed HMS Roxborough, To Russia in August 1944. Renamed Zhostkyi, returned to Britain in February 1949. Broken up in 1952
DD - 133 Hale
Renamed HMS Caldwell, Broken up in 1944
DD - 183 Haraden
Renamed HMS Columbia, Broken up in 1945
DD - 198 Herndon
Renamed HMS Churchill, To Russia August 1944. Renamed Delatelnyi, sunk by U-286 January 16 1945
DD - 181 Hopewell
Renamed HMS Bath, Sunk August 19 1941 by U-204
DD - 194 Hunt
TO Canada, Renamed HMCS Broadway. Broken up in 1947
DD - 170 Kalk
To Canada, renamed HMCS Hamilton. Broken up in 1945
DD - 263 Laub
Renamed HMS Burwell, Broken up in 1947
DD - 175 Mackenzie
To Canada, Renamed HMCS Annapolis. Broken up in 1945
DD - 168 Maddox
Renamed HMS Georgetown, To Russia in August 1944. Renamed Doblesnyi, Broken up in 1949
DD - 191 Mason
Renamed HMS Broadwater, Sunk by U-101 October 18 1941
DD - 253 Mc Calla
Renamed HMS Stanley, Sunk by U-574 December 18 1941
DD - 252 Mc Cook
To Canada, renamed HMCS St. Croix. Sunk by U-952 September 20 1943
DD - 264 Mc Lanahan
Renamed HMS Bradford, Broken up in 1946
DD - 274 Meade
Renamed HMS Ramsey, Broken up in 1947
DD - 76 Philip
Renamed HMS Lancaster, Broken up in 1947
DD - 88 Robinson
Renamed HMS Newmarket, Broken up in 1945
DD - 254 Rodgers
Renamed HMS Sherwood, Sunk as target in 1945
DD - 89 Ringgold
Renamed HMS Newark, Broken up in 1947
DD - 190 Satterlee
Renamed HMS Belmont, Sunk by U-82 January 31 1942
DD - 268 Shubrick
Renamed HMS Ripley, Broken up in 1945
DD - 81 Sigourney
Renamed HMS Newport, Broken up in 1947
DD - 73 Stockton
Renamed HMS Ludlow, Broken up in 1945
DD - 273 Swasey
Renamed HMS Rockingham, Struck mine on September 27 1944, 30 miles southeast of Aberdeen and sunk while under tow
DD - 162 Thacher
To Canada, renamed HMCS Niagara. Broken up on 1946
DD - 182 Thomas
Renamed HMS St. Albans, To Russia In August 1944. Renamed Dostoiny, Broken up in 1949
DD - 135 Tillman
Renamed HMS Wells, Broken up in 1945
DD - 127 Twiggs
Renamed HMS Leamington, To Russia in August 1944. Renamed Zhyachi, Broken up for scrap in 1951
DD - 195 Welborn C Wood
Renamed HMS Chesterfield, Broken up in 1947
DD - 257 Wells
Renamed HMS Cameron, Damaged beyond repair in air raid in Portsmouth Harbor December 15 1940
DD - 75 Wickes
Renamed HMS Montgomery, Broken up in 1945
DD - 108 Williams
To Canada, renamed HMCS St. Clair. Foundered in 1946
DD - 143 Yarnall
Renamed HMS Lincoln, To Canada in 1942 as HMCS Lincoln. To Russia In August 1944, Cannibalized to provide spare parts for 8 of her sisters already in Russian service. Hulk Broken up in 1952. This ship was named after my ancestor Lt. John Joliffe Yarnall 1786-1815



And as far as Liberty ships and the "Queens" are concerned, I really don't see any comparison between luxury liners and ships that were built in a day, other than the fact that the may have crossed the same stretch of ocean during the war.

I certainly know which ship I'd rather be on.

cyrusdvirus

Tony EH wrote: »

And as far as Liberty ships and the "Queens" are concerned, I really don't see any comparison between luxury liners and ships that were built in a day, other than the fact that the may have crossed the same stretch of ocean during the war.

A luxury liner that normally carries 2100 passengers in peacetime would not feel like the same ship when it's carrying 15000 passengers in wartime.

My point is that any of the Liberty ships, or any luxury liner in wartime service, wouldn't be described as comfortable.

As for the Town class, most of them were still in service at towards the end of the war, still performing convoy escort duties.

Tony EH

I'm not so sure about the town-classes gatecrash, I'm pretty sure I've read before that a lot of them were sitting around fairly idle for most of the war, or doing second line jobs, like escort pickup in safer areas. Either way, the only thing I have book-wise on it is in Clay Blair's 'Hitler's U-Boat War', I'll have a gander at that and see what it says.

As to the "Queens" and the Liberty ships, I understand your point and both may not have been "comfortable", but I still see no real comparison between a Liberty ship, wielded together, produced in a day an thrown out to sea as part of XXXX number of boats and a liner that was produced over many, many days, built to the highest standards of the time and was a far more seaworthy vessel.

cyrusdvirus

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm not so sure about the town-classes gatecrash, I'm pretty sure I've read before that a lot of them were sitting around fairly idle for most of the war, or doing second line jobs, like escort pickup in safer areas. Either way, the only thing I have book-wise on it is in Clay Blair's 'Hitler's U-Boat War', I'll have a gander at that and see what it says.

Must have a re-read of that one myself, it's been a while. the version i have is in 2 volumes, one covering the earlier part of the war called The Hunters, and the secend covering the latter part, called The Hunted.

Getting back OT, the Town class were supplemented by an emergency destroyer building program, which built about 110 ships from about 6 different classes, but all based on the hull from the pre-war J,K & N classes, (somewhat similar to the Spruance class hull being utilised for the Kidd class and the Ticonderoga class ships in more recent past), and were supposed to be replaced by a modified Hunt class, but the design origons of the Hunts as a fleet escort destroyer, limited the ability to turn them into a convoy escort, their machinery and hull design not being suited to plodding along with a convoy, as opposed to racing along with the main battle line. All of which resulted in the Towns being kept in service....

Tony EH wrote: »

As to the "Queens" and the Liberty ships, I understand your point and both may not have been "comfortable", but I still see no real comparison between a Liberty ship, wielded together, produced in a day an thrown out to sea as part of XXXX number of boats and a liner that was produced over many, many days, built to the highest standards of the time and was a far more seaworthy vessel.

With regard to the Liberty ships they were designed with a lifespan of 5 years. The build quality was never going to be great, but sometimes good enough is, and has to be acceptable. Even with that there are only 12 documented hull losses where a ship simply snapped in half, and that is more down to the raw materials used in contruction than the actual construction methods. 12 ships out of 2700 built is a low enough loss ratio when you think about it. Over 2400 Liberty's survived the war, again, imo a low enough loss ratio for what would have been regarded as a relatively expendable asset.

kowloon

McArmalite wrote: »

Still, they made some good stuff too, the Mustang was a hell of a fighter.

Only after they ditched the crappy Allison engine and gave the beast a Merlin.

Manic Moran

kowloon wrote: »

Only after they ditched the crappy Allison engine and gave the beast a Merlin.

See Post #18.

NTM

McArmalite

FiSe wrote: »

Mustang -as we know it - was half British invention

kowloon wrote: »

Only after they ditched the crappy Allison engine and gave the beast a Merlin.

Ok, the Merlin engine was better, but what made the Mustang so effective was it's disposable fuel tanks which allowed it to have a greater flying range than the Spitfire, Hurricane or Messerschmitt .

FiSe

McArmalite wrote: »

Ok, the Merlin engine was better, but what made the Mustang so effective was it's disposable fuel tanks which allowed it to have a greater flying range than the Spitfire, Hurricane or Messerschmitt .

Yes you are absolutely right... As none of those types were able to use such a device....
What are you talking about?

McArmalite

FiSe wrote: »

Yes you are absolutely right... As none of those types were able to use such a device....
What are you talking about?

Ok, ya got me FiSe