Appendix: Hut Types Tantly, Counter-Height Equipment Coming of the Quonset: Its All-Steel Could Now Be Installed Close to the Construction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Appendix: Hut Types tantly, counter-height equipment coming of the Quonset: its all-steel could now be installed close to the construction. Steel was not only a crit- wall without out any residual loss of ical material during the war but also floor space. rusted quickly in the tropics and, in the Arctic, permitted cold temperature migration across metal structures. Wood structures greatly reduce ther- mal transfer. The Pacific hut is easily recognizable by the celotex, a water- proof form of masonite, exterior and 1. QUONSET HUT—T-RIB the triangular ridgeline vent cover. 16' x 36' and 16' x 20' The original Quonset hut, which came 3. QUONSET STRAN-STEEL HUT to be known as the T-Rib Quonset, 20' x 48' and 20' x 56' was developed in response to the The third and final generation of the Navy’s desire to produce a new pre- Quonset hut was produced by Stran- fabricated hut system during World Steel of Detroit, Michigan. This design War II to shelter troops abroad. At reverted back to the full arch profile Quonset Point, Rhode Island, George and used many of the same structural A. Fuller and his design team, under components as the Redesign, but now 5. BUTLER HUT the direction of Otto Brandenberger, it appeared lighter, thinner, or pushed 16' x multiple of 4' and created the T-Rib Quonset, an adapt- to greater spans. Initially introduced 24' x multiple of 4' able building for mass production that with corrugated panels, similar to Developed by the Butler would be portable, erected and the T-Rib, it was later modified to Manufacturing Company of Kansas knocked down quickly and easily, use the factory-curved panel only at City, Missouri, the Butler hut was an adaptable to any climate and geogra- the ridge. The remaining sidewall all-steel arched hut—profile slightly phy, and provide soldiers with the and end wall panels were mounted more than half a circle—with U- most protection and comfort possible. with corrugated metal oriented in the shaped arched ribs around an eight- opposite direction. foot radius. End walls were framed with steel and end walls and side- walls were enclosed with two-foot- wide standing seam metal sheets. Not long after World War II, however, Butler abandoned the curved-roof approach, although they still produce metal prefabricated buildings today 2. QUONSET HUT—REDESIGN with gabled roofs. 16' x 36' and 24' x 60' 4. PACIFIC HUT The basic strategy of the Quonset 18'–6" x 37'–4" Redesign was to keep the footprint of Frank Hobbs, a mechanical engineer the T-Rib design but to introduce a who later formed the Pacific Hut lighter I-shaped steel arch with four- Company in Seattle, took blueprints of foot vertical sidewalls. The new arch, his all-wood Quonset design, the assembled in two sections instead of Pacific hut, to the U.S. Army Corps of three, reduced erection time and Engineers in summer of 1942. It was required fewer fasteners. More impor- designed to overcome the major short- 148 Appendix such as culverts and storm sewers. credit the origin of the design, inspired 149 The heavy iron (8- to 14-gauge) did not by a chicken shed, to their engineer G. require supporting ribs but was curved D. Paxson, the similarities to the and corrugated much like a Quonset Quonset and Pacific huts are undeni- hut. Armcos were strong enough to able. Built in Boise, Iowa, beginning in be completely buried in up to six feet 1943, the Emkay had laminated wood 6. JAMESWAY of dirt. ribs. Its distinct “two-centered arch” 16' x multiple of 4' and appears pointed, or gothic, in profile. 20' x multiple of 4' The huts look peaked from outside The James Manufacturing Company of after the exterior sheathing is applied. Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin, created a All styles were built entirely of wood version of the Quonset hut with and wallboard, could be built to any wooden ribs and an insulated fabric lengths in multiples of twelve feet, and covering for the Army Air Corps. This could accommodate different climates. portable and easy-to-assemble hut 8. PORTASEAL HUT was designed for Arctic weather con- 16' x 37' ditions when personnel were wearing The Portaseal hut, frequently seen bulky clothes and mittens but needed along the Alaska Highway and CANOL shelter construction to proceed quickly. pipeline, is a Canadian version of the Insulated blankets in four-foot-wide wood-framed, plywood-clad structure. lengths were made with glass fiber These huts were shipped in prefabri- insulation faced with flame-proof cated sections, could be erected quick- muslin and enclosed in plastic-treated ly, and were heated with improvised 10. COWIN HUT cotton that was water, vermin, and fire oil drum stoves. Identifiable features 36' x 60' proof. The hardware (nails, fasteners, include a tar-paper finish nailed atop The large, steel semicircular ware- and connecting bars) was the only plywood sidewalls, end walls with houses were developed by Cowin and metal component, and the whole large windows, and wide batten-type Company, Inc. for the Air Corps at package weighed 1,200 pounds for trim boards atop the end walls' vertical Wright Field. Cowin called their struc- a 16' x 16' hut. Its wooden packing panel joints. Some surviving examples ture a 36' x 60' Steeldrome. To resist crates were designed for reuse as the have been observed with six-inch thrust on the arch caused by snow hut floor. sheathing strips in lieu of plywood. loads, Cowins used a truss system of horizontal steel tie rods and vertical steel hangers. Not many Cowin huts were shipped to Alaska after 1943 because they were inadequate for Alaskan snow loads. A number of them collapsed in their first winter 7. ARMCO HUT of use. 20' x 50' During World War II, the Armco International Corporation of 9. EMKAY HUT Middletown, Ohio, produced arched 20' x 48' corrugated ingot iron bunkers, ammu- Morrison-Knudsen Company designed nition magazines, and personnel shel- the Emkay (M-K) hut to shelter their ters. The heavy steel buildings were crews for their large and remote mili- modeled on earth-retaining structures tary construction contracts. While they 149 Appendix Notes First Session of the Seventy-Seventh Congress ber of the team. Peter Dejongh, a career-long of the United States of America, 1941–1942, engineer with George A. Fuller and Chapter 1 and Treaties, International Agreements Other Company, is memorialized as the hut’s How the Hut Came to Be than Treaties, and Proclamations designer in his obituary appearing in the Chris Chiei (Washington: Government Printing Office, New York Times that year, but McDonnell, 1 Richard M. Casella, Martha H. Bowers, and 1942), 55:31–33. Since the Navy later used the last surviving member of the design Leonid I. Shmookler, prepared for the United these two firms for numerous construction team, claimed to have never hear of Dejongh. States Navy, Northern Division Naval projects on the Atlantic Coast and overseas, Tim Clark, “Living in a Quonset Hut Is Like Facilities Engineering Command, Recordation they eventually acquired the official title of Eating Spam,” Yankee Magazine 49, no.11 Report for Naval Construction Training “East Coast Contractors.” “The Quonset (November 1985): 119 Center Davisville (Camp Endicott) Buildings Hut,” transcript, 187, Providence College 19 Robert Brandenberger (son of Otto T2-8, T11, T13, and T15-19: North Kingston, Archives, Rhode Island. Brandenberger) to Author, Responses to Washington County, Rhode Island, (Lester, 9 Public Laws, 31–33. Interview Questionnaire regarding Otto PA: Northern Division Naval Facilities 10 Forward bases are special-operations Brandenberger, 11 January 2004. Engineering Command, 1997), 9. bases usually located in friendly territory, or 20 Rudolph A. Hempe, “Ugly Hut Put 2 George A. Fuller Company, George A. Fuller afloat, that are established to extend control Quonset on Map,” Providence Evening Company: General Contractors (New York: or communications or to provide support for Bulletin, 15 July 1966, Quonset Hut George A. Fuller Company, 1937). training and tactical operations. United Collection, Providence College Archives. 3 “Dunbar Sullivan Dredging Company: States Navy, Building the Navy’s Bases in 21 Ibid. Cleveland, Ohio,” 2003, collection GLMS-3, World War II: History of the Bureau of Yards 22 Fred McCosh, Nissen of the Huts (Borne Historical Collection of the Great Lakes, and Docks and the Civil Engineering Corps End, England: B. D. Publishing, 1997), Bowling Green State University Manuscript 1940–1946 (Washington, DC: Government 76–108. and Archival Material, http://www.bgsu.edu/ Printing Office, 1947), 1:162. 23 Keith Mallory and Arvid Ottar, The colleges/library/hcgl/glms0003.html 11 Recordation Report for Naval Construction Architecture of War (New York: Pantheon, (accessed November 14, 2003). Training Center Davisville, 11. 1973), 81. 4 “Merritt-Chapman and Scott,” International 12 George A. Fuller Company, The George A. 24 McCosh, Nissen of the Huts, 109–12. Database and Gallery of Structures (15 October Fuller Company: War and Peace, 1940–1947 25 Hempe, “Ugly Hut Put Quonset on Map.” 2003), http://www.structurae.de/en/firms/ (New York: George A. Fuller Company, 1947), 26 George A. Fuller Company, The George A. data/fir1299.php (accessed November 14, 62. Fuller Company, 63. 2003). 13 “They Slept Under Our Roof,” unknown 27 Ibid. 5 Recordation Report for Naval Construction newspaper source, nd., Quonset Hut 28 Miller assigned a Navy Drawing Training Center Davisville: 9. Collection, Providence College Archives. Accession number 2759 to the drawings and 6 U.S. Department of State, Peace and War: 14 George A. Fuller Company, The George A. forwarded them to Moreell for review. United States Foreign Policy, 1931–1941 Fuller Company, 61–62.