ADAPTING and CONVERTING COMMERCIAL SHIPS for MILITARY OPERATIONS by William Scott Sassorossi
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Abstract DEFENDING THE EAST COAST: ADAPTING AND CONVERTING COMMERCIAL SHIPS FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS By William Scott Sassorossi March 2015 Director: Dr. Nathan Richards DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY The United States was not fully prepared for war in the Atlantic Ocean directly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. Closely following the attack, Germany declared war on the United States and Hitler’s deadly U-boats would soon arrive along the East Coast to wreak havoc on merchant shipping. Plans and operations needed to be put in place to counter the U-boats’ ability to strike unprotected ships and to do so, unconventional means were used. By acquiring ships of all types from both public and commercial sectors and adapting some for military use, the United States Navy quickly enabled a serviceable military response to the U- boat menace. This study will focus on converted fishing trawlers used for military action, specifically those wrecked off the coast of North Carolina. The vessels HMS Senateur Duhamel and HMT Bedfordshire were loaned to the United States by the British Royal Navy to assist in anti- submarine duties in February, 1942. Soon thereafter, YP-389, an American built vessel, was put into service as well. All of these vessels were used commercially prior to the outbreak of the war and then converted for military operations. The purpose of this study is to better understand each ship’s use as a military vessel, including how each was adapted for military use and why they were chosen for certain operational duties. It is also the purpose of this study to reassess Keith Muckelroy’s claim that archaeologists do not need to study modern ships built according to plan, by testing if records pertaining to the modifications made to each vessel match the archaeological evidence. Combining historical and archaeological references this study hopes to process the information and determine the success of each vessel, validate whether or not modifications were made according to plan, as well as to understand broader military modification of commercially adapted vessels. DEFENDING THE EAST COAST: ADAPTING AND CONVERTING COMMERCIAL SHIPS FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of The Department of History East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Maritime Studies By William Scott Sassorossi March 2015 ©Copyright 2015 William Scott Sassorossi DEFENDING THE EAST COAST: ADAPTING AND CONVERTING COMMERCIAL SHIPS FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS By William Scott Sassorossi APPROVED BY: DIRECTOR OF THESIS: Nathan Richards, Ph.D. COMMITTEE MEMBER: Wade Dudley, Ph.D. COMMITTEE MEMBER: Bradley Rodgers, Ph.D. COMMITTEE MEMBER: Joseph Hoyt, MA CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY: Gerald J. Prokopowicz, Ph.D. DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL: Paul Gemperline, Ph.D. DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to the sailors who lost their lives while in service aboard HMT Bedfordshire and YP-389, as well as to all our service men and women in hopes of recognizing the countless untold stories of their bravery, selflessness, and sacrifice. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the support of many people. First and foremost, I would like to thank my wife Meg for her unconditional love and support, as none of this would have been truly possible without her. To my parents and sister, their encouragement and positivity motivated me to achieve what, at times, I considered impossible. Thanks to my extended family, especially the Newton’s, who offered limitless guidance and assistance. I consider the love and encouragement of my family, as large as it is, to be the truest source of motivation in completing this project. Many thanks go to my professors at East Carolina University, especially my thesis advisor Dr. Nathan Richards, for taking me on and guiding me through this project. Thank you to my other committee members, Dr. Bradley Rodgers, Dr. Wade Dudley, and Joe Hoyt for all their insight and guidance. Additional thanks go to Joe Hoyt, as well as John McCord of the Coastal Studies Institute, for assisting with specific data collection and site information. I would also like to thank Tom Horn and Kara Fox, both fellow Maritime Studies students during this period, for their technical support and expertise of the Rhinoceros modeling program. Without assistance and guidance from all of these individuals, the completion of this thesis would not have been possible. Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES x CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction 1 Research Questions 5 Primary 5 Secondary 5 Previous Research 6 Theory 7 Methodology 10 Historical Methodology 11 Archaeological Methodology 13 Analysis 13 Conclusion 15 CHAPTER TWO: HISTORY OF NAVAL ADAPTATION 17 Introduction 17 War of 1812 19 Confederate Ironclads 22 British Q-Ships 26 Inter-war German U-boat Designs 31 Conclusion 34 CHAPTER THREE: THEORIES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORMATION AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE 36 Introduction 36 Site Formation Processes 37 Technological Change 47 Conclusion 57 CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY 60 Introduction 60 Historical Research 61 Secondary Sources 62 Primary Sources 64 Archaeological Evidence 71 Site Formation and Technological Change 72 Expedition Evidence 73 Analysis 77 Rhinoceros 5.0 Models 78 Conclusion 88 CHAPTER FIVE: CASE STUDIES IN ADAPTATION AND TRANSFORMATION 89 Introduction 89 HMS Senateur Duhamel 90 HMT Bedfordshire 110 YP-389 126 Conclusion 142 CHAPTER SIX: ANALYSIS OF CASE STUDIES 143 Introduction 143 HMS Senateur Duhamel 144 HMT Bedfordshire 156 YP-389 167 Models of Technological Change 177 Conclusion 180 CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION 183 REFERENCES CITED 187 LIST OF TABLES 4.1. Graph representing available historical information of selected vessels 69 4.2. Graph representing available archaeological information of selected vessels 77 4.3. Graph representing describing each model group, as well as the intention of the model and the sources used to complete the model for each vessel 87 6.1. Site formation processes observed for HMS Senateur Duhamel 155 6.2. Site formation processes observed for HMT Bedfordshire 166 6.3. Site formation processes observed for YP-389 176 6.4. Models of technological change and evidence available in the selected vessels 178 LIST OF FIGURES 1.1. A model reconstruction of USS Mendota created by Brian Diveley 14 1.2. A site reconstruction of a section of USS Ostego, created by Brian Diveley 15 2.1. Line engraving published in "Harper's Weekly", 1861. Entitled "The Rebel Steamer 'Merrimac', Razed, and Iron-Clad -- From a Sketch furnished by a Mechanic who was employed on Board." 23 2.2. British "Q" ship Hyderabad; Cargo hatch concealing Sutton Armstrong bomb thrower. Date unknown 28 2.3. British "Q" ship "Hyderabad"; Sutton Armstrong bomb thrower concealed in cargo hatch. Ready for action. Date unknown 29 2.4. Plan diagram of a type VII C U-boat, U-580, built in 1941 34 3.1. Flow diagram displaying the evolution of a shipwreck 39 4.1. General ship plans of converted trawler-class type 69 4.2. Multibeam imagery taken of HMS Senateur Duhamel 74 4.3. ROV image of YP-389 75 4.4. HMT Bedfordshire Site Plan, created 2010 76 4.5. Outer Hull, Port side lines created for HMS Senateur Duhamel model 80 4.6. Outer Hull, Port side lines “lofted” for HMS Senateur Duhamel model 80 4.7. Construction of Cohasset, later YP-389, at Fore River Yard, Quincy, MA 81 4.8. Construction of Cohasset, later YP-389, at Fore River Yard, Quincy, MA 82 4.9. Bedfordshire deck arrangement plans 83 4.10. Vickers gun emplacement on HMT Bedfordshire. “Dated Oct. ’41. Gunner Storey and Featherstone on twin Vickers 0/5” M.G. Fitted in place of Lewis gun 84 4.11. Starboard side displaying frames and double frames at turn of the bilge 86 5.1. Senateur Duhamel and crew at work, date unknown 90 5.2. Deck arrangement of Senateur Duhamel 91 5.3. Lower deck arrangement of Senateur Duhamel 91 5.4. Model Group A of Senateur Duhamel, aerial view from starboard side 92 5.5. Model Group A of Senateur Duhamel, aerial view from port side 93 5.6. Model Group A of Senateur Duhamel, starboard hull removed to expose engine and boilers 93 5.7. Port Movement Summary of HMS Senateur Duhamel 95 5.8. HMS Senateur Duhamel displaying post conversion armament, date unknown 96 5.9. Starboard view of HMS Senateur Duhamel post conversion, date unknown 97 5.10. Starboard view of HMS Senateur Duhamel and the converted features 98 5.11. Port side view of HMS Senateur Duhamel displaying converted features 98 5.12. Bow of HMS Senateur Duhamel displaying the raised forecastle, deck gun, deck gun platform as well as a windlass 99 5.13. Stern section of HMS Senateur Duhamel showing two depth charge rails, two depth charge throwers, and the Holman projector 100 5.14. One of the boilers from HMS Senateur Duhamel, 29 July 2012 104 5.15. Tunnel remains of HMS Senateur Duhamel, 29 July 2012 104 5.16. Windlass or winch of HMS Senateur Duhamel, 29 July 2012 105 5.17. Stem post of HMS Senateur Duhamel, 29 July 2012 105 5.18. Possible deck gun feature on HMS Senateur Duhamel, 29 July 2012 106 5.19. Multibeam data combined with dive photography for site identification of HMS Senateur Duhamel 107 5.20. Site remains of HMS Senateur Duhamel 108 5.21. Identified features within the site remains of HMS Senateur Duhamel 108 5.22. Boiler, possible engine remains, tunnel, and possible hull structure remains of HMS Senateur Duhamel 109 5.23. View of Bedfordshire, starboard side 111 5.24. View of Bedfordshire, port side 111 5.25.