Was an engineer on two Victories, Averdijk and Axeldijk both owned by Holland Amerika Lines. They were by far the easiest engine rooms to run on any ship I ever sailed on. You just turned them on in Rotterdam and turned them off at your destination.ships. Wonderful memories.
I sailed a Victory to Vietnam in 1969 "Denison Victory" carried ammo to base up the rivers. The ships were well built and reliable we had Limited AC power. If memory serves me DC generators, my most vivid memory is when we came into port and rigged cargo cranes and unbatten the hatches. That was hard work and had to done quickly.. Came home and sailed thru a typhoon, Thank God the Captain was old Norwegian who really new his business, if he didn't I would not be here today!!Great Video
@@nicolasnewman4308 I "sailed" on both the Castor (AKS-1) and the Paricutin (AE-18) during "Nam", both converted Victory ships. As for electrical power: the ships power was DC (turbine driven generators), the deck equipment was AC and had separate diesel generators. The engine room housed ALL the propulsion and auxiliary power. Looking back...they were death traps!
During most of 1968 I was stationed at the munitions port near Sattahip Thailand - at Camp Vayama. We could handle three ships at a time, two on either side of a DeLong pier and one on on the fixed pier that was primarily for POL. The Hattiesburg Victory is the only one I remember by name.
Many forget, or never knew, that civilians manned many of the vessels that took America's industrial output to Europe. Those men deserve the same credit as those in USN vessels.
Served aboard 2 different converted Victory Ships during "Nam": USS Castor AKS1 (general stores) and the USS Paricutin AE18 (ammunition). Castor had a sister ship...the USS Pollux AKS2. Castor was HOME PORTED in Sasebo Japan...she could not have survived a trans-Pacific voyage. Due to main turbine failure, she was decommissioned and scrapped at Sasebo.
A good quick look at the 2 different war emergency cargo ships built during wwll. But..... the volume starts off low but hearable, then drops off to almost unable to hear.
In 1941 the _Empire Liberty_ was launched in Sunderland, England, to a standard modular design by a local shipyard. The first _Liberty ship_ was born. British shipyards were expanding, but running 24/7 unable to meet supply. The British needed more ships so used idle American industry to make them to a standard, simple, and quick to make Sunderland design. They visited many US companies and sites for shipyards which they would set up. They went to Kaiser in late 1940, who had a small shipyard in Seattle. The British came up with $96 million to secure a deal building the Liberty design which would include the financing by Hunter of Sunderland of the building of two new shipyards. The US embarked on a programme of merchant ship building so adopted the British Liberty design, which was being made in the USA in new British financed shipyards. The official history of North American supply states that this was the most monumental supply deal of WW2.
I have a question which has never been really answered regarding Liberty ships. They used an obsolete triple-expansion steam piston engine of about 2500 HP, as I recall. One screw. They were slow, topping out at just about 11 knots. That was the big knock against them, they were slow and underpowered making them easy marks for U-boats. But, why didn't the US scale-up the steam engine they used to get more power? They had the room inside the engine bay, no reason they couldn't take that 2500 HP design and upgrade it with larger diameter pistons and squeeze maybe 4-5000 HP out of it. Why run slow and vulnerable if you don't have to?
That is a interesting point you make. they could have fitted a more powerful engine... maybe they did not to keep fuel consumption down... a lot of those engines where build by steam locomotive works, was there perhaps a limit to how the big an engine they could build ?
@@jandoerlidoe3412 The Victory ship, which was an advancement on the design of the Liberty ship, used a 6000-8000 HP steam turbine for exactly that reason-more power and speed. It topped out at 17 knots at full speed. For the Liberty ship the US manufacturers took a British engine design and built it as spec'd out. Turned out it was underpowered, but that could be seen by a sharp designer from the beginning. They should have scaled it up to 4000-5000 HP at any rate.
@@pimpompoom93726 Phil The liberty ship design was based on a 1870 th cargo ship . In a sense that is odd as the British had build standard ships before in WW I. A ship's speed is dictated by its lines: just putting more HP in does not mean the ship will sail much faster.... never the less, i believe liberty ships would have benefitted from more powerful engines... Probably the reasoning behind choosing a outdated 19th century design was that its simple lines where easier to build... The victory ships did have finer lines ( hull design ) that did lend to higher speeds, so, in that case putting in a 8000 SHP turbine made sense... Also, at that time steamturbines for cargo ship became available again, as before the whole production capacity of turbine engine builders had been devoted to war ships.... All in all the story of the liberty ship design & building is a fascinating story as they where mass produced & build up out of prefab modules with standardized machinery & auxhilaries...
@@jandoerlidoe3412 At any rate, I love looking at those triple expansion piston steam engines the Liberty ships had. I'm an engineer by trade and work for the US automotive industry. Well designed motors appeal to my eye, even steam driven motors!
@@jandoerlidoe3412 The reason is simple: $$$. These ships were built fast and cheap...turbines would have added thousands of dollars and more time to the construction. A turbine is much more sophisticated (and thus more expensive) to produce and operate that a triple expansion stem engine. Todays maritime ships operate with HUGE diesel engines...steam has limited applications, like nuclear powered vessels.
Convoys were usually made up of ships of multiple types, ages and speeds. Not infrequently the speed of the slowest ship was only 7 or 8 knots. Rarely was the speed of the Liberty ships the limiting factor in a convoy’s speed.
Sort of. It was determined that if a Liberty ship only completed one successful voyage and safely made their delivery then they had accomplished their mission and represented a net win. That said they were hoping to get more than one crossing out of them. The concrete ships, that I did not cover, were considered more disposable and not that many were made (many were motorless barges). With all that said you are essentially correct about Liberty ships but the Victory ships were made with many uses in mind but one successful crossing would still be considered acceptable. The T2 tankers were basically redesigned Liberty ships and the same goes for them.
The design life for a Liberty ship was only 5 years. While one trip with a full cargo constituted a 'net win' they were designed to have a productive life through at least the duration of the war (est. 4-5 years in 1940). After several fracture failures, mainly in cold water conditions, they discovered design flaws which made their design life more questionable. These were rectified (first in the Liberty ships and carried over to the Victory ships) by improving the grade of steel used in the hulls, designing out stress raisers like sharp corners, adding crack arrestors in critical areas (adding a strip of steel along the side of the ship in some Liberties), increasing the distance between internal girders to 36 inches (from 30 inches) and so on. The failures stopped after these corrections.
Victory ships were used mainly in the Pacific theater of operations, where their extra speed helped cover the long distances in a reasonable period of time. They were 5-6 knots/hour faster than Liberty ships.
Did the Liberty Ships have a thrust bearing mechanism between the engine crankshaft and the prop? I've heard those were used in some steam powered ships to provide isolation of load between the prop and the engine. In schematics I've seen of Liberty ships, I see direct connection between the prop and engine. Anybody?
Развлечения
Was an engineer on two Victories, Averdijk and Axeldijk both owned by Holland Amerika Lines. They were by far the easiest engine rooms to run on any ship I ever sailed on. You just turned them on in Rotterdam and turned them off at your destination.ships. Wonderful memories.
Thanks for your in-person knowledge!
I sailed a Victory to Vietnam in 1969 "Denison Victory" carried ammo to base up the rivers. The ships were well built and reliable we had Limited AC power. If memory serves me DC generators, my most vivid memory is when we came into port and rigged cargo cranes and unbatten the hatches. That was hard work and had to done quickly.. Came home and sailed thru a typhoon, Thank God the Captain was old Norwegian who really new his business, if he didn't I would not be here today!!Great Video
wow you are old i am sailing on american victory in 2020
@@nicolasnewman4308 I "sailed" on both the Castor (AKS-1) and the Paricutin (AE-18) during "Nam", both converted Victory ships. As for electrical power: the ships power was DC (turbine driven generators), the deck equipment was AC and had separate diesel generators. The engine room housed ALL the propulsion and auxiliary power. Looking back...they were death traps!
During most of 1968 I was stationed at the munitions port near Sattahip Thailand - at Camp Vayama.
We could handle three ships at a time, two on either side of a DeLong pier and one on on the fixed pier that was primarily for POL.
The Hattiesburg Victory is the only one I remember by name.
Some of them were built in 4 days. They were of low quality. Some of them were drown in the port before they became operational.
Many forget, or never knew, that civilians manned many of the vessels that took America's industrial output to Europe. Those men deserve the same credit as those in USN vessels.
I had to put volume at maximum just to hear what you are saying. Had to bring to your attention.
An excellent and highly informative presentation sir!
The sound on this is weak and distorted
the mumbling is a disgrace...
Could you possibly mumble a little quieter? @ full volume, I cannot hear the mumbling...
Thank you for using Morten Lauridsen's "O Magnum Mysterium" in the background. Magnificent!
Very nice, Max. Relevant, informative, and interesting.
Served aboard 2 different converted Victory Ships during "Nam": USS Castor AKS1 (general stores) and the USS Paricutin AE18 (ammunition). Castor had a sister ship...the USS Pollux AKS2. Castor was HOME PORTED in Sasebo Japan...she could not have survived a trans-Pacific voyage. Due to main turbine failure, she was decommissioned and scrapped at Sasebo.
I have sailed aboard the John W. Brown and plan to visit that Liberty ship again.
Also on my 'To Do' list is paying a visit to a Victory.
A good quick look at the 2 different war emergency cargo ships built during wwll. But..... the volume starts off low but hearable, then drops off to almost unable to hear.
Audio levels are very low.
In 1941 the _Empire Liberty_ was launched in Sunderland, England, to a standard modular design by a local shipyard. The first _Liberty ship_ was born.
British shipyards were expanding, but running 24/7 unable to meet supply. The British needed more ships so used idle American industry to make them to a standard, simple, and quick to make Sunderland design. They visited many US companies and sites for shipyards which they would set up. They went to Kaiser in late 1940, who had a small shipyard in Seattle. The British came up with $96 million to secure a deal building the Liberty design which would include the financing by Hunter of Sunderland of the building of two new shipyards.
The US embarked on a programme of merchant ship building so adopted the British Liberty design, which was being made in the USA in new British financed shipyards. The official history of North American supply states that this was the most monumental supply deal of WW2.
I sailed as a navigation officer on a Victory ship the ss Mariekerk in 1968/69 to the Persian Gulf for the United Netherlands Shipping Co (VNS).
I visited the American Victory in Tampa. I love that ship!
I have a question which has never been really answered regarding Liberty ships. They used an obsolete triple-expansion steam piston engine of about 2500 HP, as I recall. One screw. They were slow, topping out at just about 11 knots. That was the big knock against them, they were slow and underpowered making them easy marks for U-boats. But, why didn't the US scale-up the steam engine they used to get more power? They had the room inside the engine bay, no reason they couldn't take that 2500 HP design and upgrade it with larger diameter pistons and squeeze maybe 4-5000 HP out of it. Why run slow and vulnerable if you don't have to?
That is a interesting point you make. they could have fitted a more powerful engine... maybe they did not to keep fuel consumption down... a lot of those engines where build by steam locomotive works, was there perhaps a limit to how the big an engine they could build ?
@@jandoerlidoe3412 The Victory ship, which was an advancement on the design of the Liberty ship, used a 6000-8000 HP steam turbine for exactly that reason-more power and speed. It topped out at 17 knots at full speed. For the Liberty ship the US manufacturers took a British engine design and built it as spec'd out. Turned out it was underpowered, but that could be seen by a sharp designer from the beginning. They should have scaled it up to 4000-5000 HP at any rate.
@@pimpompoom93726 Phil The liberty ship design was based on a 1870 th cargo ship . In a sense that is odd as the British had build standard ships before in WW I.
A ship's speed is dictated by its lines: just putting more HP in does not mean the ship will sail much faster.... never the less, i believe liberty ships would have benefitted from more powerful engines...
Probably the reasoning behind choosing a outdated 19th century design was that its simple lines where easier to build...
The victory ships did have finer lines ( hull design ) that did lend to higher speeds, so, in that case putting in a 8000 SHP turbine made sense...
Also, at that time steamturbines for cargo ship became available again, as before the whole production capacity of turbine engine builders had been devoted to war ships....
All in all the story of the liberty ship design & building is a fascinating story as they where mass produced & build up out of prefab modules with standardized machinery & auxhilaries...
@@jandoerlidoe3412 At any rate, I love looking at those triple expansion piston steam engines the Liberty ships had. I'm an engineer by trade and work for the US automotive industry. Well designed motors appeal to my eye, even steam driven motors!
@@jandoerlidoe3412 The reason is simple: $$$. These ships were built fast and cheap...turbines would have added thousands of dollars and more time to the construction. A turbine is much more sophisticated (and thus more expensive) to produce and operate that a triple expansion stem engine. Todays maritime ships operate with HUGE diesel engines...steam has limited applications, like nuclear powered vessels.
Shipped out on liberty ship USS Rose in December 1965. Took us nearly two weeks to get to Germany.
Those ships and the Merchant Marines crews help to built our todays History...
Convoys were usually made up of ships of multiple types, ages and speeds. Not infrequently the speed of the slowest ship was only 7 or 8 knots. Rarely was the speed of the Liberty ships the limiting factor in a convoy’s speed.
Was there changes in the deck cranes between them?
Both the Liberty Ships and Victory Ships helped to win WWII.
Correct me if I am wrong.. They were only expected to make one trip across the Atlantic.. I swear I saw that somewhere..? Great video BTW.. 👍
Sort of. It was determined that if a Liberty ship only completed one successful voyage and safely made their delivery then they had accomplished their mission and represented a net win. That said they were hoping to get more than one crossing out of them. The concrete ships, that I did not cover, were considered more disposable and not that many were made (many were motorless barges). With all that said you are essentially correct about Liberty ships but the Victory ships were made with many uses in mind but one successful crossing would still be considered acceptable. The T2 tankers were basically redesigned Liberty ships and the same goes for them.
The design life for a Liberty ship was only 5 years. While one trip with a full cargo constituted a 'net win' they were designed to have a productive life through at least the duration of the war (est. 4-5 years in 1940). After several fracture failures, mainly in cold water conditions, they discovered design flaws which made their design life more questionable. These were rectified (first in the Liberty ships and carried over to the Victory ships) by improving the grade of steel used in the hulls, designing out stress raisers like sharp corners, adding crack arrestors in critical areas (adding a strip of steel along the side of the ship in some Liberties), increasing the distance between internal girders to 36 inches (from 30 inches) and so on. The failures stopped after these corrections.
"Liberty" ships...not "Victory" Ships.
Wich ones were converted to t2 tankers??
Very interesting video. The sound not so good. Thank you tho.
I didn't know about Victory Ships until today.
You always hear about the Liberty Ships but never about the Victory Ships.
Victory ships were used mainly in the Pacific theater of operations, where their extra speed helped cover the long distances in a reasonable period of time. They were 5-6 knots/hour faster than Liberty ships.
Audio is weak.
Can't hear the narration.
I was a cargo handler in the US Army , worked on Liberty ships and Victory ships
Me too. Camp Vayama near Sattahip Thailand in 1968.
And there is only 3 of each left
Did the Liberty Ships have a thrust bearing mechanism between the engine crankshaft and the prop? I've heard those were used in some steam powered ships to provide isolation of load between the prop and the engine. In schematics I've seen of Liberty ships, I see direct connection between the prop and engine. Anybody?
The Axis Forces only lost WW2 because as of 01/01/43, they were outnumbered...