Was the tugboat ever part of a WWII battle group?
It would seem a pretty logical addition to a WWII battle group to have one of more tugs for the capital ships (heck, any ship), yet I don't see much evidence of that. Let me elaborate.
I was an Army officer for support company. If I recall correctly (it was a LONG time ago), we had several wreckers whose jobs was to retrieve tanks or other vehicles that had been disabled. A couple were fully armored and capable of towing the heavy tanks of the day (M60A3 and M1, just introduced) under fire if necessary.
I have been reading about several incidents in WWII involving US capital ships: Yorktown, Hornet, and Chicago. They were crippled and trying to make it to safer waters. Of the ships, only the Chicago was ever towed by a tugboat (the equivalent of my wrecker) and not at first. Without a tugboat, ships like the Yorktown could only be towed at 3-5 knots, but I hear of Navajo class tugs with speeds better than 15 knots. Under load I haven't been able to find a source but I would think it much better than 3-5 knots.
Considering how important capital ships were, especially carriers like Hornet and Yorktown, why wasn't there a tug or two handy in the event they became disabled? Seems like in the case of Yorktown especially, speedy evacuation could have saved her. In addition, using a tug would mean freeing another ship to continue the fight. Why weren't there tugs available at Midway, Santa Cruz or other confrontations where they might have been able to quickly take other ships to safer waters? TIA
world-war-two navy
add a comment |
It would seem a pretty logical addition to a WWII battle group to have one of more tugs for the capital ships (heck, any ship), yet I don't see much evidence of that. Let me elaborate.
I was an Army officer for support company. If I recall correctly (it was a LONG time ago), we had several wreckers whose jobs was to retrieve tanks or other vehicles that had been disabled. A couple were fully armored and capable of towing the heavy tanks of the day (M60A3 and M1, just introduced) under fire if necessary.
I have been reading about several incidents in WWII involving US capital ships: Yorktown, Hornet, and Chicago. They were crippled and trying to make it to safer waters. Of the ships, only the Chicago was ever towed by a tugboat (the equivalent of my wrecker) and not at first. Without a tugboat, ships like the Yorktown could only be towed at 3-5 knots, but I hear of Navajo class tugs with speeds better than 15 knots. Under load I haven't been able to find a source but I would think it much better than 3-5 knots.
Considering how important capital ships were, especially carriers like Hornet and Yorktown, why wasn't there a tug or two handy in the event they became disabled? Seems like in the case of Yorktown especially, speedy evacuation could have saved her. In addition, using a tug would mean freeing another ship to continue the fight. Why weren't there tugs available at Midway, Santa Cruz or other confrontations where they might have been able to quickly take other ships to safer waters? TIA
world-war-two navy
It looks like the Yorktown, at least, was taken under tow: the USS Vireo. Note that the Vireo topped out at 15 knots (and was making 9 heading towards the battle), while the Yorktown, after the initial damage sustained, was still capable of 20.
– Clockwork-Muse
11 hours ago
As a rule of thumb, any time a task needs to be done in a combat zone that you'd expect a civilian ship to do, look for the destroyers: they're probably the ones doing it.
– Mark
8 hours ago
add a comment |
It would seem a pretty logical addition to a WWII battle group to have one of more tugs for the capital ships (heck, any ship), yet I don't see much evidence of that. Let me elaborate.
I was an Army officer for support company. If I recall correctly (it was a LONG time ago), we had several wreckers whose jobs was to retrieve tanks or other vehicles that had been disabled. A couple were fully armored and capable of towing the heavy tanks of the day (M60A3 and M1, just introduced) under fire if necessary.
I have been reading about several incidents in WWII involving US capital ships: Yorktown, Hornet, and Chicago. They were crippled and trying to make it to safer waters. Of the ships, only the Chicago was ever towed by a tugboat (the equivalent of my wrecker) and not at first. Without a tugboat, ships like the Yorktown could only be towed at 3-5 knots, but I hear of Navajo class tugs with speeds better than 15 knots. Under load I haven't been able to find a source but I would think it much better than 3-5 knots.
Considering how important capital ships were, especially carriers like Hornet and Yorktown, why wasn't there a tug or two handy in the event they became disabled? Seems like in the case of Yorktown especially, speedy evacuation could have saved her. In addition, using a tug would mean freeing another ship to continue the fight. Why weren't there tugs available at Midway, Santa Cruz or other confrontations where they might have been able to quickly take other ships to safer waters? TIA
world-war-two navy
It would seem a pretty logical addition to a WWII battle group to have one of more tugs for the capital ships (heck, any ship), yet I don't see much evidence of that. Let me elaborate.
I was an Army officer for support company. If I recall correctly (it was a LONG time ago), we had several wreckers whose jobs was to retrieve tanks or other vehicles that had been disabled. A couple were fully armored and capable of towing the heavy tanks of the day (M60A3 and M1, just introduced) under fire if necessary.
I have been reading about several incidents in WWII involving US capital ships: Yorktown, Hornet, and Chicago. They were crippled and trying to make it to safer waters. Of the ships, only the Chicago was ever towed by a tugboat (the equivalent of my wrecker) and not at first. Without a tugboat, ships like the Yorktown could only be towed at 3-5 knots, but I hear of Navajo class tugs with speeds better than 15 knots. Under load I haven't been able to find a source but I would think it much better than 3-5 knots.
Considering how important capital ships were, especially carriers like Hornet and Yorktown, why wasn't there a tug or two handy in the event they became disabled? Seems like in the case of Yorktown especially, speedy evacuation could have saved her. In addition, using a tug would mean freeing another ship to continue the fight. Why weren't there tugs available at Midway, Santa Cruz or other confrontations where they might have been able to quickly take other ships to safer waters? TIA
world-war-two navy
world-war-two navy
asked yesterday
kmccartykmccarty
29828
29828
It looks like the Yorktown, at least, was taken under tow: the USS Vireo. Note that the Vireo topped out at 15 knots (and was making 9 heading towards the battle), while the Yorktown, after the initial damage sustained, was still capable of 20.
– Clockwork-Muse
11 hours ago
As a rule of thumb, any time a task needs to be done in a combat zone that you'd expect a civilian ship to do, look for the destroyers: they're probably the ones doing it.
– Mark
8 hours ago
add a comment |
It looks like the Yorktown, at least, was taken under tow: the USS Vireo. Note that the Vireo topped out at 15 knots (and was making 9 heading towards the battle), while the Yorktown, after the initial damage sustained, was still capable of 20.
– Clockwork-Muse
11 hours ago
As a rule of thumb, any time a task needs to be done in a combat zone that you'd expect a civilian ship to do, look for the destroyers: they're probably the ones doing it.
– Mark
8 hours ago
It looks like the Yorktown, at least, was taken under tow: the USS Vireo. Note that the Vireo topped out at 15 knots (and was making 9 heading towards the battle), while the Yorktown, after the initial damage sustained, was still capable of 20.
– Clockwork-Muse
11 hours ago
It looks like the Yorktown, at least, was taken under tow: the USS Vireo. Note that the Vireo topped out at 15 knots (and was making 9 heading towards the battle), while the Yorktown, after the initial damage sustained, was still capable of 20.
– Clockwork-Muse
11 hours ago
As a rule of thumb, any time a task needs to be done in a combat zone that you'd expect a civilian ship to do, look for the destroyers: they're probably the ones doing it.
– Mark
8 hours ago
As a rule of thumb, any time a task needs to be done in a combat zone that you'd expect a civilian ship to do, look for the destroyers: they're probably the ones doing it.
– Mark
8 hours ago
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
The US Navy certainly had ocean-going tugs during the Second World War. One example you mentioned was the Navajo-class, or Cherokee-class ocean-going fleet tugs (ATF), another were the Abnaki-class fleet tugs.
These vessels should not be confused with harbour tugs which perform a completely different function.
There are a number of sites that list US Navy ocean-going tugs, one example being this one that lists US Navy Ocean Tugs (AT, ATO, ATF, ATA, ATR)
Even given a top speed close to 15 knots, and a range of up to 6000 miles, these vessels couldn't come close to matching the speed of large naval vessels which could make over 30 knots. In addition, even though most of these vessels weren't completely unarmed, they were certainly only lightly armed compared to most combat ships.
For operations where speed was essential (the Battle of Midway being a great example), there was no way that one of these vessels could accompany a battle group, no matter how useful they might have been once combat operations began, and in their immediate aftermath.
However, some of these vessels certainly did accompany task forces in the Pacific theatre. For example, the USS Apache (ATF-67)
- image source Wikimedia
served as part of Task Force 31 for the invasion of Bougainville in 1943, as part of Task Group 31.2 for an assault on Emirau Island in the Bismarck Archipelago in March 1944, and at Guadalcanal the following month. She then joined Task Group 53.1 in June 1944 to assist in the invasion of Saipan.
In these cases, the relatively slow speed and light armament of the ATF were not a significant disadvantage.
If you're interested in the operation of fleet tugs during the Second World War, the paper Fleet Tugs in World War II by Cmdr. Edward H. Lundquist may also be of interest.
add a comment |
Operation Overlord, the allied invasion of Normandy began in August of 1943. Almost every boat available was thrown into the mix.
Captain Publicover, Master of the U. S. War Shipping Administration
Tug Farallon, was assigned to the task of towing vital military and
naval equipment to the assault areas on the coast of France. By expert
seamanship and navigational skill, and in spite of cross winds and
rough seas, he accomplished his difficult task in a most efficient
manner. His steadfast courage in the face of enemy artillery fire,
heavily mined water, and sporadic air attack, was an inspiration to
his crew. The courage and devotion to duty of Captain Publicover were
in keeping with the best traditions of the United States Merchant
Marine.
Perry Adams of San Carlos, California, arrived
at the former summer resort, Lee-on-Solent, just across from the Isle
of Wight, in March of 1944. Adams was a Purser/Pharmacist's Mate on
the tug, MV Farallon, which carried a crew of 32 mariners plus 11
Naval Armed Guard.
The MV Farallon was one of 10 War Shipping Administration tugs
operated by Moran Towing of New York, in company with 2 U.S. Navy
tugs, 2 Dutch tugs, and several British tugs. The MV Farallon was 195
feet long, 37 feet wide, draft 15.5 feet, displacement 1,063 tons,
2,250 horsepower and could do 14 knots in light conditions
http://www.usmm.org/normandy.html
During World War II the men of the Royal Navy’s Rescue Tug Service
considered themselves neither fish nor fowl.
Their expertise was essential, for ocean towage requires great skill
and a cool head, but as volunteers from the Merchant Navy they had to
sign what was known as the T.124T agreement, which put them under
naval discipline for the duration of the war.
https://www.forces.net/news/tri-service/tugs-war-untold-story-royal-navys-rescue-service
New contributor
Operation Overlord, the invasion of Normandy, was in June 1944.
– R Leonard
3 hours ago
add a comment |
You need to take into account the effect of slow tugs on battle groups. If they remain together the max speed of the group is that of its slowest boat. 15 knots is darn slow by WW2, or even WW1, warship standards and would severely limit long distance deployments like in the Pacific.
Tanks on the other hand are often, at least in the initial assault phases, before deep penetration exploitation, less likely to outrun their support vehicles.
A "friendlier" environment to your concept, and more akin to your example of tank retrieval, would be near coastal operations, like in the North Sea during WW2.
add a comment |
During combat operations, ships that were damaged and unable to steam on their own out of the combat zone, were typically towed by other combat vessels. As an example, the heavy cruiser USS Northampton attempted to tow the carrier USS Hornet at the battle of Santa Cruz:
add a comment |
The largest air-sea operation of the war (including the Pacific but excluding D-Day as too big to be one operation) was the Malta convoy of August 1942, Operation Pedestal. The Official History (Vol 2, Notes to Map 30) says that one tug was assigned to the oiling force and one to the "escort right through to Malta". No details are given, and since two of the four cruisers in this group were sunk and the other two damaged, it's a reasonable assumption that the tug, whatever her name, returned to Gibraltar while assisting a damaged ship. (It's also worth noting that the Official History is not infallible. It credits the saving of the Ohio to "the destroyer Penn and the minesweepers Rye and Ledbury"; Ledbury was actually a Hunt-class destroyer, whose captain remembers a fourth ship helping push the invaluable tanker on her way.)
Tugs were often attached to convoys that were expected to come under attack, particularly when rescue ships were not available. The problem is that being neither merchant ships nor escorts, they were usually left out of the official reports.
Might suggest that the Mariana's operations of June 1944, the operations around Leyte in October 1944, the invasion of Iwo Jima in February 1945, and the invasion and peripheral operations at Okinawa in April 1945, all had considerably more ships and aircraft involved than did Operation Pedestal.
– R Leonard
3 hours ago
add a comment |
No!
A tugboat doesn't pull, or tug, it's load; rather it pushes it with that padded front end.
Their purpose is to nudge large ships around cramped harbours due to those ships having no steerageway at such low speeds. Their very low freeboard (height of gunnels above the water) makes them completely unsuitable for open water use, even though mush of the interior is compartmentalised. As they work entirely within the confines of small harbours they have no use for large fuel tanks, and consequently an operational range measured in hours rather than days and weeks.
Further, they would be a severe liability in a naval battle due to their complete lack of armament or self defence.
Also, paradoxically, large ships are capable of much faster speeds than smaller ones, due to the cube-square law (until strength of materials fails, of course). Top speed for a tugboat is typically about 14 knots, while top speed for open water vessels is above 30 knots; more than twice as great. Top speed for a tug under load. pushing a vessel orders of magnitude heavier, will be a tiny fraction of top speed, if only because the load vessel is no longer aerodynamic when being pushed sideways.
To consider one of your examples, Midway, the as the crow flies distance to Pearl Harbor is about 850 NM; at least 84 hours travel time out for a tug at top speed, plus however long for one or more refuelings. Then several times that, at least, coming back with load. No port can be without its tugs for so long when other large vessels are constantly coming and going.
10
"A tugboat doesn't pull..." - This is not even true for "harbour tugs", in ports on tidal river estuaries. It is quite common to have several tugs pulling on lines from the bow and/or stern of the ship being manoeuvred. Of course the tugs can also let the lines go slack and push, when required.
– alephzero
22 hours ago
@alephzero: I have only seen a couple of hours of tug activity, in just two harbours, so will accept that. Clearly the tugs in the video and snap above are capable of having attached lines of sufficient weight attached. My point remains that they are designed to push because they are there to provide steerage, at least primarily, not locomotion..
– Pieter Geerkens
22 hours ago
10
Sorry but this answer is fundamentally wrong. You're confusing harbour tugs with ocean-going tugs and you're not even right about harbour tugs (e.g., here's a harbour tug assisting HMCS Athabaskan, and a pair towing a barge).
– David Richerby
18 hours ago
2
I live in West Seattle and we can see a busy shipping lane from upstairs. We constantly see tugs towing barges. It's just part of daily life around here. It's far, far, far more common than tugs pushing around anything. Can you imagine trying to push something like this from Seattle up to Alaska? lynden.com/aml/tools/gallery/…
– James Moore
12 hours ago
(Just went upstairs to look, and sure enough Wasp is towing a barge past our house right now - marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:432216/…)
– James Moore
11 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "324"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f50955%2fwas-the-tugboat-ever-part-of-a-wwii-battle-group%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The US Navy certainly had ocean-going tugs during the Second World War. One example you mentioned was the Navajo-class, or Cherokee-class ocean-going fleet tugs (ATF), another were the Abnaki-class fleet tugs.
These vessels should not be confused with harbour tugs which perform a completely different function.
There are a number of sites that list US Navy ocean-going tugs, one example being this one that lists US Navy Ocean Tugs (AT, ATO, ATF, ATA, ATR)
Even given a top speed close to 15 knots, and a range of up to 6000 miles, these vessels couldn't come close to matching the speed of large naval vessels which could make over 30 knots. In addition, even though most of these vessels weren't completely unarmed, they were certainly only lightly armed compared to most combat ships.
For operations where speed was essential (the Battle of Midway being a great example), there was no way that one of these vessels could accompany a battle group, no matter how useful they might have been once combat operations began, and in their immediate aftermath.
However, some of these vessels certainly did accompany task forces in the Pacific theatre. For example, the USS Apache (ATF-67)
- image source Wikimedia
served as part of Task Force 31 for the invasion of Bougainville in 1943, as part of Task Group 31.2 for an assault on Emirau Island in the Bismarck Archipelago in March 1944, and at Guadalcanal the following month. She then joined Task Group 53.1 in June 1944 to assist in the invasion of Saipan.
In these cases, the relatively slow speed and light armament of the ATF were not a significant disadvantage.
If you're interested in the operation of fleet tugs during the Second World War, the paper Fleet Tugs in World War II by Cmdr. Edward H. Lundquist may also be of interest.
add a comment |
The US Navy certainly had ocean-going tugs during the Second World War. One example you mentioned was the Navajo-class, or Cherokee-class ocean-going fleet tugs (ATF), another were the Abnaki-class fleet tugs.
These vessels should not be confused with harbour tugs which perform a completely different function.
There are a number of sites that list US Navy ocean-going tugs, one example being this one that lists US Navy Ocean Tugs (AT, ATO, ATF, ATA, ATR)
Even given a top speed close to 15 knots, and a range of up to 6000 miles, these vessels couldn't come close to matching the speed of large naval vessels which could make over 30 knots. In addition, even though most of these vessels weren't completely unarmed, they were certainly only lightly armed compared to most combat ships.
For operations where speed was essential (the Battle of Midway being a great example), there was no way that one of these vessels could accompany a battle group, no matter how useful they might have been once combat operations began, and in their immediate aftermath.
However, some of these vessels certainly did accompany task forces in the Pacific theatre. For example, the USS Apache (ATF-67)
- image source Wikimedia
served as part of Task Force 31 for the invasion of Bougainville in 1943, as part of Task Group 31.2 for an assault on Emirau Island in the Bismarck Archipelago in March 1944, and at Guadalcanal the following month. She then joined Task Group 53.1 in June 1944 to assist in the invasion of Saipan.
In these cases, the relatively slow speed and light armament of the ATF were not a significant disadvantage.
If you're interested in the operation of fleet tugs during the Second World War, the paper Fleet Tugs in World War II by Cmdr. Edward H. Lundquist may also be of interest.
add a comment |
The US Navy certainly had ocean-going tugs during the Second World War. One example you mentioned was the Navajo-class, or Cherokee-class ocean-going fleet tugs (ATF), another were the Abnaki-class fleet tugs.
These vessels should not be confused with harbour tugs which perform a completely different function.
There are a number of sites that list US Navy ocean-going tugs, one example being this one that lists US Navy Ocean Tugs (AT, ATO, ATF, ATA, ATR)
Even given a top speed close to 15 knots, and a range of up to 6000 miles, these vessels couldn't come close to matching the speed of large naval vessels which could make over 30 knots. In addition, even though most of these vessels weren't completely unarmed, they were certainly only lightly armed compared to most combat ships.
For operations where speed was essential (the Battle of Midway being a great example), there was no way that one of these vessels could accompany a battle group, no matter how useful they might have been once combat operations began, and in their immediate aftermath.
However, some of these vessels certainly did accompany task forces in the Pacific theatre. For example, the USS Apache (ATF-67)
- image source Wikimedia
served as part of Task Force 31 for the invasion of Bougainville in 1943, as part of Task Group 31.2 for an assault on Emirau Island in the Bismarck Archipelago in March 1944, and at Guadalcanal the following month. She then joined Task Group 53.1 in June 1944 to assist in the invasion of Saipan.
In these cases, the relatively slow speed and light armament of the ATF were not a significant disadvantage.
If you're interested in the operation of fleet tugs during the Second World War, the paper Fleet Tugs in World War II by Cmdr. Edward H. Lundquist may also be of interest.
The US Navy certainly had ocean-going tugs during the Second World War. One example you mentioned was the Navajo-class, or Cherokee-class ocean-going fleet tugs (ATF), another were the Abnaki-class fleet tugs.
These vessels should not be confused with harbour tugs which perform a completely different function.
There are a number of sites that list US Navy ocean-going tugs, one example being this one that lists US Navy Ocean Tugs (AT, ATO, ATF, ATA, ATR)
Even given a top speed close to 15 knots, and a range of up to 6000 miles, these vessels couldn't come close to matching the speed of large naval vessels which could make over 30 knots. In addition, even though most of these vessels weren't completely unarmed, they were certainly only lightly armed compared to most combat ships.
For operations where speed was essential (the Battle of Midway being a great example), there was no way that one of these vessels could accompany a battle group, no matter how useful they might have been once combat operations began, and in their immediate aftermath.
However, some of these vessels certainly did accompany task forces in the Pacific theatre. For example, the USS Apache (ATF-67)
- image source Wikimedia
served as part of Task Force 31 for the invasion of Bougainville in 1943, as part of Task Group 31.2 for an assault on Emirau Island in the Bismarck Archipelago in March 1944, and at Guadalcanal the following month. She then joined Task Group 53.1 in June 1944 to assist in the invasion of Saipan.
In these cases, the relatively slow speed and light armament of the ATF were not a significant disadvantage.
If you're interested in the operation of fleet tugs during the Second World War, the paper Fleet Tugs in World War II by Cmdr. Edward H. Lundquist may also be of interest.
edited 15 hours ago
answered yesterday
sempaiscuba♦sempaiscuba
49.3k6170217
49.3k6170217
add a comment |
add a comment |
Operation Overlord, the allied invasion of Normandy began in August of 1943. Almost every boat available was thrown into the mix.
Captain Publicover, Master of the U. S. War Shipping Administration
Tug Farallon, was assigned to the task of towing vital military and
naval equipment to the assault areas on the coast of France. By expert
seamanship and navigational skill, and in spite of cross winds and
rough seas, he accomplished his difficult task in a most efficient
manner. His steadfast courage in the face of enemy artillery fire,
heavily mined water, and sporadic air attack, was an inspiration to
his crew. The courage and devotion to duty of Captain Publicover were
in keeping with the best traditions of the United States Merchant
Marine.
Perry Adams of San Carlos, California, arrived
at the former summer resort, Lee-on-Solent, just across from the Isle
of Wight, in March of 1944. Adams was a Purser/Pharmacist's Mate on
the tug, MV Farallon, which carried a crew of 32 mariners plus 11
Naval Armed Guard.
The MV Farallon was one of 10 War Shipping Administration tugs
operated by Moran Towing of New York, in company with 2 U.S. Navy
tugs, 2 Dutch tugs, and several British tugs. The MV Farallon was 195
feet long, 37 feet wide, draft 15.5 feet, displacement 1,063 tons,
2,250 horsepower and could do 14 knots in light conditions
http://www.usmm.org/normandy.html
During World War II the men of the Royal Navy’s Rescue Tug Service
considered themselves neither fish nor fowl.
Their expertise was essential, for ocean towage requires great skill
and a cool head, but as volunteers from the Merchant Navy they had to
sign what was known as the T.124T agreement, which put them under
naval discipline for the duration of the war.
https://www.forces.net/news/tri-service/tugs-war-untold-story-royal-navys-rescue-service
New contributor
Operation Overlord, the invasion of Normandy, was in June 1944.
– R Leonard
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Operation Overlord, the allied invasion of Normandy began in August of 1943. Almost every boat available was thrown into the mix.
Captain Publicover, Master of the U. S. War Shipping Administration
Tug Farallon, was assigned to the task of towing vital military and
naval equipment to the assault areas on the coast of France. By expert
seamanship and navigational skill, and in spite of cross winds and
rough seas, he accomplished his difficult task in a most efficient
manner. His steadfast courage in the face of enemy artillery fire,
heavily mined water, and sporadic air attack, was an inspiration to
his crew. The courage and devotion to duty of Captain Publicover were
in keeping with the best traditions of the United States Merchant
Marine.
Perry Adams of San Carlos, California, arrived
at the former summer resort, Lee-on-Solent, just across from the Isle
of Wight, in March of 1944. Adams was a Purser/Pharmacist's Mate on
the tug, MV Farallon, which carried a crew of 32 mariners plus 11
Naval Armed Guard.
The MV Farallon was one of 10 War Shipping Administration tugs
operated by Moran Towing of New York, in company with 2 U.S. Navy
tugs, 2 Dutch tugs, and several British tugs. The MV Farallon was 195
feet long, 37 feet wide, draft 15.5 feet, displacement 1,063 tons,
2,250 horsepower and could do 14 knots in light conditions
http://www.usmm.org/normandy.html
During World War II the men of the Royal Navy’s Rescue Tug Service
considered themselves neither fish nor fowl.
Their expertise was essential, for ocean towage requires great skill
and a cool head, but as volunteers from the Merchant Navy they had to
sign what was known as the T.124T agreement, which put them under
naval discipline for the duration of the war.
https://www.forces.net/news/tri-service/tugs-war-untold-story-royal-navys-rescue-service
New contributor
Operation Overlord, the invasion of Normandy, was in June 1944.
– R Leonard
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Operation Overlord, the allied invasion of Normandy began in August of 1943. Almost every boat available was thrown into the mix.
Captain Publicover, Master of the U. S. War Shipping Administration
Tug Farallon, was assigned to the task of towing vital military and
naval equipment to the assault areas on the coast of France. By expert
seamanship and navigational skill, and in spite of cross winds and
rough seas, he accomplished his difficult task in a most efficient
manner. His steadfast courage in the face of enemy artillery fire,
heavily mined water, and sporadic air attack, was an inspiration to
his crew. The courage and devotion to duty of Captain Publicover were
in keeping with the best traditions of the United States Merchant
Marine.
Perry Adams of San Carlos, California, arrived
at the former summer resort, Lee-on-Solent, just across from the Isle
of Wight, in March of 1944. Adams was a Purser/Pharmacist's Mate on
the tug, MV Farallon, which carried a crew of 32 mariners plus 11
Naval Armed Guard.
The MV Farallon was one of 10 War Shipping Administration tugs
operated by Moran Towing of New York, in company with 2 U.S. Navy
tugs, 2 Dutch tugs, and several British tugs. The MV Farallon was 195
feet long, 37 feet wide, draft 15.5 feet, displacement 1,063 tons,
2,250 horsepower and could do 14 knots in light conditions
http://www.usmm.org/normandy.html
During World War II the men of the Royal Navy’s Rescue Tug Service
considered themselves neither fish nor fowl.
Their expertise was essential, for ocean towage requires great skill
and a cool head, but as volunteers from the Merchant Navy they had to
sign what was known as the T.124T agreement, which put them under
naval discipline for the duration of the war.
https://www.forces.net/news/tri-service/tugs-war-untold-story-royal-navys-rescue-service
New contributor
Operation Overlord, the allied invasion of Normandy began in August of 1943. Almost every boat available was thrown into the mix.
Captain Publicover, Master of the U. S. War Shipping Administration
Tug Farallon, was assigned to the task of towing vital military and
naval equipment to the assault areas on the coast of France. By expert
seamanship and navigational skill, and in spite of cross winds and
rough seas, he accomplished his difficult task in a most efficient
manner. His steadfast courage in the face of enemy artillery fire,
heavily mined water, and sporadic air attack, was an inspiration to
his crew. The courage and devotion to duty of Captain Publicover were
in keeping with the best traditions of the United States Merchant
Marine.
Perry Adams of San Carlos, California, arrived
at the former summer resort, Lee-on-Solent, just across from the Isle
of Wight, in March of 1944. Adams was a Purser/Pharmacist's Mate on
the tug, MV Farallon, which carried a crew of 32 mariners plus 11
Naval Armed Guard.
The MV Farallon was one of 10 War Shipping Administration tugs
operated by Moran Towing of New York, in company with 2 U.S. Navy
tugs, 2 Dutch tugs, and several British tugs. The MV Farallon was 195
feet long, 37 feet wide, draft 15.5 feet, displacement 1,063 tons,
2,250 horsepower and could do 14 knots in light conditions
http://www.usmm.org/normandy.html
During World War II the men of the Royal Navy’s Rescue Tug Service
considered themselves neither fish nor fowl.
Their expertise was essential, for ocean towage requires great skill
and a cool head, but as volunteers from the Merchant Navy they had to
sign what was known as the T.124T agreement, which put them under
naval discipline for the duration of the war.
https://www.forces.net/news/tri-service/tugs-war-untold-story-royal-navys-rescue-service
New contributor
edited 13 hours ago
New contributor
answered 22 hours ago
chasly from UKchasly from UK
1913
1913
New contributor
New contributor
Operation Overlord, the invasion of Normandy, was in June 1944.
– R Leonard
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Operation Overlord, the invasion of Normandy, was in June 1944.
– R Leonard
3 hours ago
Operation Overlord, the invasion of Normandy, was in June 1944.
– R Leonard
3 hours ago
Operation Overlord, the invasion of Normandy, was in June 1944.
– R Leonard
3 hours ago
add a comment |
You need to take into account the effect of slow tugs on battle groups. If they remain together the max speed of the group is that of its slowest boat. 15 knots is darn slow by WW2, or even WW1, warship standards and would severely limit long distance deployments like in the Pacific.
Tanks on the other hand are often, at least in the initial assault phases, before deep penetration exploitation, less likely to outrun their support vehicles.
A "friendlier" environment to your concept, and more akin to your example of tank retrieval, would be near coastal operations, like in the North Sea during WW2.
add a comment |
You need to take into account the effect of slow tugs on battle groups. If they remain together the max speed of the group is that of its slowest boat. 15 knots is darn slow by WW2, or even WW1, warship standards and would severely limit long distance deployments like in the Pacific.
Tanks on the other hand are often, at least in the initial assault phases, before deep penetration exploitation, less likely to outrun their support vehicles.
A "friendlier" environment to your concept, and more akin to your example of tank retrieval, would be near coastal operations, like in the North Sea during WW2.
add a comment |
You need to take into account the effect of slow tugs on battle groups. If they remain together the max speed of the group is that of its slowest boat. 15 knots is darn slow by WW2, or even WW1, warship standards and would severely limit long distance deployments like in the Pacific.
Tanks on the other hand are often, at least in the initial assault phases, before deep penetration exploitation, less likely to outrun their support vehicles.
A "friendlier" environment to your concept, and more akin to your example of tank retrieval, would be near coastal operations, like in the North Sea during WW2.
You need to take into account the effect of slow tugs on battle groups. If they remain together the max speed of the group is that of its slowest boat. 15 knots is darn slow by WW2, or even WW1, warship standards and would severely limit long distance deployments like in the Pacific.
Tanks on the other hand are often, at least in the initial assault phases, before deep penetration exploitation, less likely to outrun their support vehicles.
A "friendlier" environment to your concept, and more akin to your example of tank retrieval, would be near coastal operations, like in the North Sea during WW2.
answered yesterday
Italian PhilosopherItalian Philosopher
894513
894513
add a comment |
add a comment |
During combat operations, ships that were damaged and unable to steam on their own out of the combat zone, were typically towed by other combat vessels. As an example, the heavy cruiser USS Northampton attempted to tow the carrier USS Hornet at the battle of Santa Cruz:
add a comment |
During combat operations, ships that were damaged and unable to steam on their own out of the combat zone, were typically towed by other combat vessels. As an example, the heavy cruiser USS Northampton attempted to tow the carrier USS Hornet at the battle of Santa Cruz:
add a comment |
During combat operations, ships that were damaged and unable to steam on their own out of the combat zone, were typically towed by other combat vessels. As an example, the heavy cruiser USS Northampton attempted to tow the carrier USS Hornet at the battle of Santa Cruz:
During combat operations, ships that were damaged and unable to steam on their own out of the combat zone, were typically towed by other combat vessels. As an example, the heavy cruiser USS Northampton attempted to tow the carrier USS Hornet at the battle of Santa Cruz:
answered 11 hours ago
DavidwDavidw
20827
20827
add a comment |
add a comment |
The largest air-sea operation of the war (including the Pacific but excluding D-Day as too big to be one operation) was the Malta convoy of August 1942, Operation Pedestal. The Official History (Vol 2, Notes to Map 30) says that one tug was assigned to the oiling force and one to the "escort right through to Malta". No details are given, and since two of the four cruisers in this group were sunk and the other two damaged, it's a reasonable assumption that the tug, whatever her name, returned to Gibraltar while assisting a damaged ship. (It's also worth noting that the Official History is not infallible. It credits the saving of the Ohio to "the destroyer Penn and the minesweepers Rye and Ledbury"; Ledbury was actually a Hunt-class destroyer, whose captain remembers a fourth ship helping push the invaluable tanker on her way.)
Tugs were often attached to convoys that were expected to come under attack, particularly when rescue ships were not available. The problem is that being neither merchant ships nor escorts, they were usually left out of the official reports.
Might suggest that the Mariana's operations of June 1944, the operations around Leyte in October 1944, the invasion of Iwo Jima in February 1945, and the invasion and peripheral operations at Okinawa in April 1945, all had considerably more ships and aircraft involved than did Operation Pedestal.
– R Leonard
3 hours ago
add a comment |
The largest air-sea operation of the war (including the Pacific but excluding D-Day as too big to be one operation) was the Malta convoy of August 1942, Operation Pedestal. The Official History (Vol 2, Notes to Map 30) says that one tug was assigned to the oiling force and one to the "escort right through to Malta". No details are given, and since two of the four cruisers in this group were sunk and the other two damaged, it's a reasonable assumption that the tug, whatever her name, returned to Gibraltar while assisting a damaged ship. (It's also worth noting that the Official History is not infallible. It credits the saving of the Ohio to "the destroyer Penn and the minesweepers Rye and Ledbury"; Ledbury was actually a Hunt-class destroyer, whose captain remembers a fourth ship helping push the invaluable tanker on her way.)
Tugs were often attached to convoys that were expected to come under attack, particularly when rescue ships were not available. The problem is that being neither merchant ships nor escorts, they were usually left out of the official reports.
Might suggest that the Mariana's operations of June 1944, the operations around Leyte in October 1944, the invasion of Iwo Jima in February 1945, and the invasion and peripheral operations at Okinawa in April 1945, all had considerably more ships and aircraft involved than did Operation Pedestal.
– R Leonard
3 hours ago
add a comment |
The largest air-sea operation of the war (including the Pacific but excluding D-Day as too big to be one operation) was the Malta convoy of August 1942, Operation Pedestal. The Official History (Vol 2, Notes to Map 30) says that one tug was assigned to the oiling force and one to the "escort right through to Malta". No details are given, and since two of the four cruisers in this group were sunk and the other two damaged, it's a reasonable assumption that the tug, whatever her name, returned to Gibraltar while assisting a damaged ship. (It's also worth noting that the Official History is not infallible. It credits the saving of the Ohio to "the destroyer Penn and the minesweepers Rye and Ledbury"; Ledbury was actually a Hunt-class destroyer, whose captain remembers a fourth ship helping push the invaluable tanker on her way.)
Tugs were often attached to convoys that were expected to come under attack, particularly when rescue ships were not available. The problem is that being neither merchant ships nor escorts, they were usually left out of the official reports.
The largest air-sea operation of the war (including the Pacific but excluding D-Day as too big to be one operation) was the Malta convoy of August 1942, Operation Pedestal. The Official History (Vol 2, Notes to Map 30) says that one tug was assigned to the oiling force and one to the "escort right through to Malta". No details are given, and since two of the four cruisers in this group were sunk and the other two damaged, it's a reasonable assumption that the tug, whatever her name, returned to Gibraltar while assisting a damaged ship. (It's also worth noting that the Official History is not infallible. It credits the saving of the Ohio to "the destroyer Penn and the minesweepers Rye and Ledbury"; Ledbury was actually a Hunt-class destroyer, whose captain remembers a fourth ship helping push the invaluable tanker on her way.)
Tugs were often attached to convoys that were expected to come under attack, particularly when rescue ships were not available. The problem is that being neither merchant ships nor escorts, they were usually left out of the official reports.
answered 13 hours ago
TimLymingtonTimLymington
57638
57638
Might suggest that the Mariana's operations of June 1944, the operations around Leyte in October 1944, the invasion of Iwo Jima in February 1945, and the invasion and peripheral operations at Okinawa in April 1945, all had considerably more ships and aircraft involved than did Operation Pedestal.
– R Leonard
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Might suggest that the Mariana's operations of June 1944, the operations around Leyte in October 1944, the invasion of Iwo Jima in February 1945, and the invasion and peripheral operations at Okinawa in April 1945, all had considerably more ships and aircraft involved than did Operation Pedestal.
– R Leonard
3 hours ago
Might suggest that the Mariana's operations of June 1944, the operations around Leyte in October 1944, the invasion of Iwo Jima in February 1945, and the invasion and peripheral operations at Okinawa in April 1945, all had considerably more ships and aircraft involved than did Operation Pedestal.
– R Leonard
3 hours ago
Might suggest that the Mariana's operations of June 1944, the operations around Leyte in October 1944, the invasion of Iwo Jima in February 1945, and the invasion and peripheral operations at Okinawa in April 1945, all had considerably more ships and aircraft involved than did Operation Pedestal.
– R Leonard
3 hours ago
add a comment |
No!
A tugboat doesn't pull, or tug, it's load; rather it pushes it with that padded front end.
Their purpose is to nudge large ships around cramped harbours due to those ships having no steerageway at such low speeds. Their very low freeboard (height of gunnels above the water) makes them completely unsuitable for open water use, even though mush of the interior is compartmentalised. As they work entirely within the confines of small harbours they have no use for large fuel tanks, and consequently an operational range measured in hours rather than days and weeks.
Further, they would be a severe liability in a naval battle due to their complete lack of armament or self defence.
Also, paradoxically, large ships are capable of much faster speeds than smaller ones, due to the cube-square law (until strength of materials fails, of course). Top speed for a tugboat is typically about 14 knots, while top speed for open water vessels is above 30 knots; more than twice as great. Top speed for a tug under load. pushing a vessel orders of magnitude heavier, will be a tiny fraction of top speed, if only because the load vessel is no longer aerodynamic when being pushed sideways.
To consider one of your examples, Midway, the as the crow flies distance to Pearl Harbor is about 850 NM; at least 84 hours travel time out for a tug at top speed, plus however long for one or more refuelings. Then several times that, at least, coming back with load. No port can be without its tugs for so long when other large vessels are constantly coming and going.
10
"A tugboat doesn't pull..." - This is not even true for "harbour tugs", in ports on tidal river estuaries. It is quite common to have several tugs pulling on lines from the bow and/or stern of the ship being manoeuvred. Of course the tugs can also let the lines go slack and push, when required.
– alephzero
22 hours ago
@alephzero: I have only seen a couple of hours of tug activity, in just two harbours, so will accept that. Clearly the tugs in the video and snap above are capable of having attached lines of sufficient weight attached. My point remains that they are designed to push because they are there to provide steerage, at least primarily, not locomotion..
– Pieter Geerkens
22 hours ago
10
Sorry but this answer is fundamentally wrong. You're confusing harbour tugs with ocean-going tugs and you're not even right about harbour tugs (e.g., here's a harbour tug assisting HMCS Athabaskan, and a pair towing a barge).
– David Richerby
18 hours ago
2
I live in West Seattle and we can see a busy shipping lane from upstairs. We constantly see tugs towing barges. It's just part of daily life around here. It's far, far, far more common than tugs pushing around anything. Can you imagine trying to push something like this from Seattle up to Alaska? lynden.com/aml/tools/gallery/…
– James Moore
12 hours ago
(Just went upstairs to look, and sure enough Wasp is towing a barge past our house right now - marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:432216/…)
– James Moore
11 hours ago
add a comment |
No!
A tugboat doesn't pull, or tug, it's load; rather it pushes it with that padded front end.
Their purpose is to nudge large ships around cramped harbours due to those ships having no steerageway at such low speeds. Their very low freeboard (height of gunnels above the water) makes them completely unsuitable for open water use, even though mush of the interior is compartmentalised. As they work entirely within the confines of small harbours they have no use for large fuel tanks, and consequently an operational range measured in hours rather than days and weeks.
Further, they would be a severe liability in a naval battle due to their complete lack of armament or self defence.
Also, paradoxically, large ships are capable of much faster speeds than smaller ones, due to the cube-square law (until strength of materials fails, of course). Top speed for a tugboat is typically about 14 knots, while top speed for open water vessels is above 30 knots; more than twice as great. Top speed for a tug under load. pushing a vessel orders of magnitude heavier, will be a tiny fraction of top speed, if only because the load vessel is no longer aerodynamic when being pushed sideways.
To consider one of your examples, Midway, the as the crow flies distance to Pearl Harbor is about 850 NM; at least 84 hours travel time out for a tug at top speed, plus however long for one or more refuelings. Then several times that, at least, coming back with load. No port can be without its tugs for so long when other large vessels are constantly coming and going.
10
"A tugboat doesn't pull..." - This is not even true for "harbour tugs", in ports on tidal river estuaries. It is quite common to have several tugs pulling on lines from the bow and/or stern of the ship being manoeuvred. Of course the tugs can also let the lines go slack and push, when required.
– alephzero
22 hours ago
@alephzero: I have only seen a couple of hours of tug activity, in just two harbours, so will accept that. Clearly the tugs in the video and snap above are capable of having attached lines of sufficient weight attached. My point remains that they are designed to push because they are there to provide steerage, at least primarily, not locomotion..
– Pieter Geerkens
22 hours ago
10
Sorry but this answer is fundamentally wrong. You're confusing harbour tugs with ocean-going tugs and you're not even right about harbour tugs (e.g., here's a harbour tug assisting HMCS Athabaskan, and a pair towing a barge).
– David Richerby
18 hours ago
2
I live in West Seattle and we can see a busy shipping lane from upstairs. We constantly see tugs towing barges. It's just part of daily life around here. It's far, far, far more common than tugs pushing around anything. Can you imagine trying to push something like this from Seattle up to Alaska? lynden.com/aml/tools/gallery/…
– James Moore
12 hours ago
(Just went upstairs to look, and sure enough Wasp is towing a barge past our house right now - marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:432216/…)
– James Moore
11 hours ago
add a comment |
No!
A tugboat doesn't pull, or tug, it's load; rather it pushes it with that padded front end.
Their purpose is to nudge large ships around cramped harbours due to those ships having no steerageway at such low speeds. Their very low freeboard (height of gunnels above the water) makes them completely unsuitable for open water use, even though mush of the interior is compartmentalised. As they work entirely within the confines of small harbours they have no use for large fuel tanks, and consequently an operational range measured in hours rather than days and weeks.
Further, they would be a severe liability in a naval battle due to their complete lack of armament or self defence.
Also, paradoxically, large ships are capable of much faster speeds than smaller ones, due to the cube-square law (until strength of materials fails, of course). Top speed for a tugboat is typically about 14 knots, while top speed for open water vessels is above 30 knots; more than twice as great. Top speed for a tug under load. pushing a vessel orders of magnitude heavier, will be a tiny fraction of top speed, if only because the load vessel is no longer aerodynamic when being pushed sideways.
To consider one of your examples, Midway, the as the crow flies distance to Pearl Harbor is about 850 NM; at least 84 hours travel time out for a tug at top speed, plus however long for one or more refuelings. Then several times that, at least, coming back with load. No port can be without its tugs for so long when other large vessels are constantly coming and going.
No!
A tugboat doesn't pull, or tug, it's load; rather it pushes it with that padded front end.
Their purpose is to nudge large ships around cramped harbours due to those ships having no steerageway at such low speeds. Their very low freeboard (height of gunnels above the water) makes them completely unsuitable for open water use, even though mush of the interior is compartmentalised. As they work entirely within the confines of small harbours they have no use for large fuel tanks, and consequently an operational range measured in hours rather than days and weeks.
Further, they would be a severe liability in a naval battle due to their complete lack of armament or self defence.
Also, paradoxically, large ships are capable of much faster speeds than smaller ones, due to the cube-square law (until strength of materials fails, of course). Top speed for a tugboat is typically about 14 knots, while top speed for open water vessels is above 30 knots; more than twice as great. Top speed for a tug under load. pushing a vessel orders of magnitude heavier, will be a tiny fraction of top speed, if only because the load vessel is no longer aerodynamic when being pushed sideways.
To consider one of your examples, Midway, the as the crow flies distance to Pearl Harbor is about 850 NM; at least 84 hours travel time out for a tug at top speed, plus however long for one or more refuelings. Then several times that, at least, coming back with load. No port can be without its tugs for so long when other large vessels are constantly coming and going.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Pieter GeerkensPieter Geerkens
39.9k6116190
39.9k6116190
10
"A tugboat doesn't pull..." - This is not even true for "harbour tugs", in ports on tidal river estuaries. It is quite common to have several tugs pulling on lines from the bow and/or stern of the ship being manoeuvred. Of course the tugs can also let the lines go slack and push, when required.
– alephzero
22 hours ago
@alephzero: I have only seen a couple of hours of tug activity, in just two harbours, so will accept that. Clearly the tugs in the video and snap above are capable of having attached lines of sufficient weight attached. My point remains that they are designed to push because they are there to provide steerage, at least primarily, not locomotion..
– Pieter Geerkens
22 hours ago
10
Sorry but this answer is fundamentally wrong. You're confusing harbour tugs with ocean-going tugs and you're not even right about harbour tugs (e.g., here's a harbour tug assisting HMCS Athabaskan, and a pair towing a barge).
– David Richerby
18 hours ago
2
I live in West Seattle and we can see a busy shipping lane from upstairs. We constantly see tugs towing barges. It's just part of daily life around here. It's far, far, far more common than tugs pushing around anything. Can you imagine trying to push something like this from Seattle up to Alaska? lynden.com/aml/tools/gallery/…
– James Moore
12 hours ago
(Just went upstairs to look, and sure enough Wasp is towing a barge past our house right now - marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:432216/…)
– James Moore
11 hours ago
add a comment |
10
"A tugboat doesn't pull..." - This is not even true for "harbour tugs", in ports on tidal river estuaries. It is quite common to have several tugs pulling on lines from the bow and/or stern of the ship being manoeuvred. Of course the tugs can also let the lines go slack and push, when required.
– alephzero
22 hours ago
@alephzero: I have only seen a couple of hours of tug activity, in just two harbours, so will accept that. Clearly the tugs in the video and snap above are capable of having attached lines of sufficient weight attached. My point remains that they are designed to push because they are there to provide steerage, at least primarily, not locomotion..
– Pieter Geerkens
22 hours ago
10
Sorry but this answer is fundamentally wrong. You're confusing harbour tugs with ocean-going tugs and you're not even right about harbour tugs (e.g., here's a harbour tug assisting HMCS Athabaskan, and a pair towing a barge).
– David Richerby
18 hours ago
2
I live in West Seattle and we can see a busy shipping lane from upstairs. We constantly see tugs towing barges. It's just part of daily life around here. It's far, far, far more common than tugs pushing around anything. Can you imagine trying to push something like this from Seattle up to Alaska? lynden.com/aml/tools/gallery/…
– James Moore
12 hours ago
(Just went upstairs to look, and sure enough Wasp is towing a barge past our house right now - marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:432216/…)
– James Moore
11 hours ago
10
10
"A tugboat doesn't pull..." - This is not even true for "harbour tugs", in ports on tidal river estuaries. It is quite common to have several tugs pulling on lines from the bow and/or stern of the ship being manoeuvred. Of course the tugs can also let the lines go slack and push, when required.
– alephzero
22 hours ago
"A tugboat doesn't pull..." - This is not even true for "harbour tugs", in ports on tidal river estuaries. It is quite common to have several tugs pulling on lines from the bow and/or stern of the ship being manoeuvred. Of course the tugs can also let the lines go slack and push, when required.
– alephzero
22 hours ago
@alephzero: I have only seen a couple of hours of tug activity, in just two harbours, so will accept that. Clearly the tugs in the video and snap above are capable of having attached lines of sufficient weight attached. My point remains that they are designed to push because they are there to provide steerage, at least primarily, not locomotion..
– Pieter Geerkens
22 hours ago
@alephzero: I have only seen a couple of hours of tug activity, in just two harbours, so will accept that. Clearly the tugs in the video and snap above are capable of having attached lines of sufficient weight attached. My point remains that they are designed to push because they are there to provide steerage, at least primarily, not locomotion..
– Pieter Geerkens
22 hours ago
10
10
Sorry but this answer is fundamentally wrong. You're confusing harbour tugs with ocean-going tugs and you're not even right about harbour tugs (e.g., here's a harbour tug assisting HMCS Athabaskan, and a pair towing a barge).
– David Richerby
18 hours ago
Sorry but this answer is fundamentally wrong. You're confusing harbour tugs with ocean-going tugs and you're not even right about harbour tugs (e.g., here's a harbour tug assisting HMCS Athabaskan, and a pair towing a barge).
– David Richerby
18 hours ago
2
2
I live in West Seattle and we can see a busy shipping lane from upstairs. We constantly see tugs towing barges. It's just part of daily life around here. It's far, far, far more common than tugs pushing around anything. Can you imagine trying to push something like this from Seattle up to Alaska? lynden.com/aml/tools/gallery/…
– James Moore
12 hours ago
I live in West Seattle and we can see a busy shipping lane from upstairs. We constantly see tugs towing barges. It's just part of daily life around here. It's far, far, far more common than tugs pushing around anything. Can you imagine trying to push something like this from Seattle up to Alaska? lynden.com/aml/tools/gallery/…
– James Moore
12 hours ago
(Just went upstairs to look, and sure enough Wasp is towing a barge past our house right now - marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:432216/…)
– James Moore
11 hours ago
(Just went upstairs to look, and sure enough Wasp is towing a barge past our house right now - marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:432216/…)
– James Moore
11 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f50955%2fwas-the-tugboat-ever-part-of-a-wwii-battle-group%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
It looks like the Yorktown, at least, was taken under tow: the USS Vireo. Note that the Vireo topped out at 15 knots (and was making 9 heading towards the battle), while the Yorktown, after the initial damage sustained, was still capable of 20.
– Clockwork-Muse
11 hours ago
As a rule of thumb, any time a task needs to be done in a combat zone that you'd expect a civilian ship to do, look for the destroyers: they're probably the ones doing it.
– Mark
8 hours ago