Complicated concept, should we seperate the discussions?


  • Total voters
    9
Ever had a flat tire, and had to call a tow truck for roadside assistance?

So, along with the idea of alternate warship designs, I would like to discuss some non-combatant ships designs, and in this thread in particular, I am looking for a couple of specific time frames from say 1900-1915, 1915-1930, 1930-1945. I know the time frames are arbitrary, and using hindsight and such, but I am not looking at discussing the international organization(s) that would have to have come into existence, nor the framework of treaties that need to be in place, in this thread, as that is best left for a discussion focused exclusively on those issues.

In this thread then, let us say that back in 1890ish, talks got started on setting up an international fleet of ships that are merchantmen most of the time, carrying limited cargoes to cover the cost of their operations, but with a very large volume set aside for Emergency Accommodations Spaces with lifeboats aplenty, designed to be able to operate in any climate on earth, and able to carry out rescue operations in the worst weather conditions they can stand up to.

What I have in mind, and just possibly may not be conveying clearly, is that in peace time, such ships would be set up to run whatever cargo would take them into the worst areas of historical maritime disasters, with the cargo being sufficient to pay the operational costs of the ships (and with lucrative shipping insurance payments for an actual rescue rounding out their profit making potential), but that they also serve as designated rescue ships, that have a large capacity for all weather lifeboat operations, with whatever equipment would be needed (Lifeboats that have heaters, for rapidly offsetting effects of hypothermia for those pulled out of the water, or lifeboats constructed stoutly enough to withstand a rough tossing about in stormy seas, and perhaps this could also have large lifeboats that offer enclosed spaces that can be made water tight), the list goes on and on, but what I want to focus on in this thread is discussions on the types of rescue ships themselves, their needed complement of lifeboats, the designs of these lifeboats, the gear the lifeboat crews would have to have, the specialized training needed, and the specialized equipment both the mothership and lifeboats would have, if their mission were to be rescue of persons in the water or lifeboats of their own.

And if a few of these ships could be built, in accordance with some hypothetical international agreements and/or treaties (Which should be discussed in a separate thread, made for the purpose), and be in the world’s most disaster prone areas such that at least one spectacular rescue is made by such a ship years before WWI, what might be the case for purpose designed ships and organizations leading up to WWI, those that come into being in WWI and the after war years, and finally those ships and organizations that could have come about in the years leading up to and during WWII.

In my mind, such a thing would probably start off with nothing more than a run of the mill cargo carrier, with some rudimentary passenger capacity, and an extra generic lifeboat or two. Let’s have some fun with this, and post design drawings of rescue ships and their lifeboats. Remember though, let us keep the politics, treaties, and organizations talk out of this thread. If we need to talk about that kind of stuff right off the bat, and along with the ships themselves, then vote “One thread to rule them all” in the attached poll. If you like the idea of separating (what I expect to be a very spirited discussion) politics from the much more focused ships and boats, then vote “Separate, but equally important threads” in the poll.

Any thoughts?
 
Your business model is alive and well and already functioning in the UK ever since a civilian contractor (Bristow Helicopters) took over most inshore rescue duties from the Royal Lifeboat Service and Royal Navy. They use the same Super Puma helicopters for rescue and flying crews out to oil rigs in the North Sea.
Similarly, Helijet provides Sikorsky S-76 helicopters to commuters and Hospitals in British Columbia. The only difference is specialized medical equipment in air ambulances. Using one model of helicopter vastly simplifies training and maintenance.

Returning to your civilian "rescue ship" business model, any container ship will do. Just pack rescue equipment into standard ISO 40 containers and only load those containers outboard of cargo containers. From a distance, the container ship will look normal - except for a few oddly-painted containers - but when they come upon a ship in distress, fire hoses, lifeboats and the ocassional helicopter tumble out of those oddly-painted containers.
Similar to the way the Royal Navy retrofitted pair of container ships during the Falklands War. These two container ships carried plenty of cargo containers, but the top layer of containers provided a flight deck for helicopters and Harrier jump-jets.
After delivering survivors to hospitals ashore, "rescue ships" could claim massive "rescue fees" from insurance companies.
Fees would be agreed upon at international conferences every couple of years.
 
Great information! I kind of figured that there was going to be something in the modern world, and that helo's would figure prominantly in it. Good to know.

Have you any thoughts what a 1900-1915 ship might look like? Either the ship itself or the lifeboats they might use?

Sorry, arthritis acting up again, enough for now.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Just run one thread if you are discussing my ATL. If you want a general discussion of theory, then have two threads. IMO, no one is likely to develop rescue ships in the first 40 years of the 1900's. In a crisis, you will see a lightly modified freighter or passenger liner.
 

Insider

Banned
Just run one thread if you are discussing my ATL. If you want a general discussion of theory, then have two threads. IMO, no one is likely to develop rescue ships in the first 40 years of the 1900's. In a crisis, you will see a lightly modified freighter or passenger liner.
Except they did. In case of emergency there were large oceanic tugs (they were large compared to tiny fleas of a tug that serve their duties in sheltered ports, not compared to ships they were helping) that supposed to rescue not just the crew but also try to save the ship and cargo. They were build with some military conversion in mind, usualy carrying a light gun even in peacetime (for shooting ropes, no less). Lightly modified freighter or passenger ship would be answer for a crisis on land, earthquake for example.

Lastly there was third group of ships that exist to this day. Icebreakers and ice-reinforced ships. These are usually build to face the worst weather there could be.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Except they did. In case of emergency there were large oceanic tugs (they were large compared to tiny fleas of a tug that serve their duties in sheltered ports, not compared to ships they were helping) that supposed to rescue not just the crew but also try to save the ship and cargo. They were build with some military conversion in mind, usualy carrying a light gun even in peacetime (for shooting ropes, no less). Lightly modified freighter or passenger ship would be answer for a crisis on land, earthquake for example.

Lastly there was third group of ships that exist to this day. Icebreakers and ice-reinforced ships. These are usually build to face the worst weather there could be.

What year was it built? Weren't these a much later development? And weren't these built mostly to get the ship back to port, more than saving lives?
 

Insider

Banned
What year was it built? Weren't these a much later development? And weren't these built mostly to get the ship back to port, more than saving lives?
They were present before WWI.
Yes they did. But since there was considerable lag between ship asking for help and the tug arriving, there is always the possibility that they would arrive to find survivors clinging to their boats. Or nothing at all. Not to say that getting the disabled ship back to the port = saving lives.
 
Your business model is alive and well and already functioning in the UK ever since a civilian contractor (Bristow Helicopters) took over most inshore rescue duties from the Royal Lifeboat Service and Royal Navy. They use the same Super Puma helicopters for rescue and flying crews out to oil rigs in the North Sea.

What??

HMCG (coastguard) is responsible for SAR, utilising helicopters provided under contract from Bristow for a ten year period starting 2015, previously fulfilled by BOTH The Royal Navy and The Royal Air force (most SAR crews being ex mil). Sikorsky S - 92 & Augusta Westalnd AW - 189 being the models used. Bristow has not had Puma nor Super Puma in any of its fleet, including offshore, for some time. Further, these assets are NOT used for any other purpose / role - they are solely dedicated to SAR and carry full HMCG titles and colours.

The Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) continues to perform exactly the same role it has since its inception in 1824, remaining a charity with an 'active' (unpaid) volunteer force of around 40,000 persons operating from 237 lifeboat stations around the UK with both inshore and offshore vessels - including a full relief / reserve fleet - with no fewer than 330 vessels on station at all times. Its role remains completely undiminished.
 
Last edited:
My thoughts for this topic are both with regard to the ships and boats, and the needed equippment and training their crews would need to make them evolve into a potent force by the time WWI kicks off, and then the much enlarged and better equipped one we would see at the start and throughout WWII, as well as the politics, treaties, and whatnot that would have to be put in place.

One of the reasons that I have posted this now, however, is indeed because of the reboot of BlondieBC's U boat thread. And while He has explained his thoughts on the matter, with his particular ATL commerce raiding forces, my concerns remain for merchant shipping losses in some areas, as well as OTL.

The big 'Breakthrough' for these types of ships, would be if one had been able to respond to the Titanic's SOS, had there been more of them in existance. So we still see 1,500 lost, but the public see that a type of existing ship could have saved everyone, had there been enought of them to provide greater coverage, and the public outcry demands more such ships, two years in advance of WWI...

Anyway, we need to take a look at the OTL ships and boats of the first time period, 1900-1915, and use these as a starting point.
 
First off, insist that all ships carry sufficient lifeboats (unlike Titanic).
Secondly, motorize some of those lifeboats.
Third pay ship-owners a bonus for ever survivor they deliver to port.
 
So, a couple links here. and Here.

So the causes and effects exist in OTL, but I want them to get started a wee bit earlier, and have a multitude of "Rescue ships" under construction and coming into service, in early 1914, and if we see U boast sinking ships far from land, then perhaps they can get the crews to abandon ship, make the sinking, and then send our an SOS and get a confirmation with ETA at co-ordinates given, before submerging and going about their business?

New data put here to test out how it will look########

As far as I know, the Japanese never had army planes/pilots fly off a carrier to land on land in a transport mode. This means the planes have to be offloaded from deck park by cranes and or carried by freighters crated.
First, lets look at this part. We have a statement of negetive information, followed by a conclusion. I also do not know that the IJA launched aircraft from a carrier, so there is that, however:

The IJA operated This just a bit later than PH OTL, and so, I rather suspect that the Japanese Imperial Army did indeed launch aircraft from their own aircraft carrying ship.


I very much doubt the cranes and the small ports on the out islands were up to the former, and the latter means it will take some time to get the planes to the dock, from the dock to the airfield, assembled, and flight tested before they fly their first combat mission.

If the small ports are damaged at all either deliberately by the Americans or in the course of fighting, that adds yet another delay and Japanese assets for this sort of repair were limited at best.


IMHO by the time you get any land based planes flying missions around Hawaii, the IJN/KB will have been long gone. I don't expect the Army pilots will be well trained in anti-shipping roles, and in 1941 I simply cannot see the IJN giving up carrier trained pilots to be land bound in this scenario. Maybe after Hawaii/Oahu is secured, but not until then.


The shortest distance across the English Channel is about 20 miles. The distance between Japan and Hawaii is over 4,000. The Japanese simply did not have the logistics to transport divisions of men thousands of miles.

Since it took about 200.000 tons to land a division in close by Philippines and Malaysia, let's call it at least 300,000 tons to land a division in far off Hawaii. The troops have to eat and it takes a lot of fuel to go all the way to Hawaii. If the transports make 12 knots it will take at least a MONTH to resupply. So if you want the troops to actually fight we are talking at least a half a million tons or so of shipping probably more. Meanwhile the US troops are sitting on bases with mountains of supplies and can have their troops shoot all day long while your troops have to carefully conserve every round because there is no resupply for a month.

There is no other landing that can be done. Japan doesn't have the capacity to do what you are suggesting. They don't have the fuel, they don't have the time, and the Army isn't giving the Navy the men.

No amount of wishful thinking is going to change logistical reality.

4:1 odds against, even if it's crack infantry against green as grass raw recruits, will quickly turn into 10,000 unmarked graves.

And trying to forward deployed the KB for THREE months?! Japan does not have the fleet oiler assets to do that. They BARELY had enough to conduct a hit and run raid. Even if you have wave that away, in 3 months, the IJN will be face to face with US Atlantic Fleet, transfered to the Pacific. That means modern Battleships and Carriers. You have just sent the cream of the IJA and IJN on a one way suicide mission. And left the home islands open to invasion. AND you still don't have the resources you started the war for in the first place! So Japan will still run out of oil in 7-9 months.

You seem to have forgotten that the USN is a two ocean Navy. Meaning, yeah, you knocked out one fleet. But guess what? We've got a whole nother fleet on its way. And it's bigger and more powerful.

can you please please please stop it is unrealistic it isn't gonna happen it's never gonna happen Japan is gonna run out of fuel and be rolled over whether in 41 or in 43 even if the UK and DEI would keep selling FYI they won't Japan almost certainly can't them because guess what all their assets everything in the US got frozen. Any Japanese attack force is gonna be rolled over by logistics by the inability to supply troops this far out Japan needs to fight 2 decisive battles one to hit the ANTFLEET one hit the PACFLEET you are wasting manpower wasting valuable fuel wasting valuable time wasting valuable merchant shipping FOR WHAT tell me what does Japan gain from conquering Pearl you enraged the US you need to supply 120000 troops to take Oahu thousands of miles from home dealing with an already massive shortfall of shipping that is only going to be exacerbated by this dumbass operation anyone who proposed this is almost certainly gonna be cashiered so please STOP BEATING A DEAD HORSE. Japan can't do it they wouldn't do it, it's suicidal it's wasteful its just dumb considering Japans needs. sending 10000 troops against 41000 is suicidal using the 3 to 1 ratio you need 120000 ideally from where don't know the army ain't gonna give that's for fucking sure the only force that can do something like this is the USN at what late 43 late 44 time period its ASB you need to teleports millions of tons of merchant shipping enough oilers to keep the IJJn running 4000 miles from home enough fuel to make sure Japan isn't fucked by this for what to watch the USN beat the IJN senseless by 43? This time just around Hawaii instead?

You seem to have forgotten that the USN is a two ocean Navy. Meaning, yeah, you knocked out one fleet. But guess what? We've got a whole nother fleet on its way. And it's bigger and more powerful.
Plus, the US has a massive amount of shipping it can call upon. In the time it takes Japan to resupply their troops once, the US can send across at least one or two more divisions, plus more airpower, plus supplies.

The two US Army divisions that were on Oahu were regular Army divisions and wouldn't crumble when being attacked by 10k 'crack' infantry, especially as the US forces on Oahu are backed up by multiple Coastal Artillery and Field Artillery units. Additionally, the Pensacola Convoy that was originally destined for the Philippines could have continued on their route back to Oahu which would have further increased the Oahu defenders by another Infantry regiment and more Field Artillery units. There were also other convoys to the PI that were enroute as well which would further increase the defenses of the Hawaiian Islands. So the US forces have troops in the pipeline to the theater but the IJ forces are limited to a couple of divisions.

The IJN can't stay there forever, it has far from infinite fuel or supplies. It drops them off and goes home. It doesn't really have the fuel to do more. By the time the fleet gets back to Japan the US has carried reinforcements and went back. By the time Japan can think of receiving reinforcements in Hawaii the US fleet has done so twice. The US has fuel and supplies and ships to burn, Japan doesn't.

How many times do people have to shout this at you? THE IJN DOES NOT HAVE THE LOGISTICS TO DO THIS!!! The IJN CANNOT support it's fleet 4,000 miles from home for months on end. They do not have the fleet train to do this. In 1941, no one did. They lack the oilers, supply ships, repair shops, ammunition ships, everything. Japan CANNOT maintain their fleet off HI for more than a few days. They simply do not have the logistical trail to do more than that.

And again, you are continuingly ignoring the US Atlantic Fleet and the PACFLT carriers. With Japanese trying to invade HI, the USN will literally transfer almost the entire fleet, including it's BBs, CVs and CAs to the Pacific. And they will all be in theater in under 30 days. The IJN will cease too exist in the ensuring battle.

##### All this in the first 6 pages ######
 
Last edited:
There exists various maritime laws outlining the duties of mariners towards aid to ships in distress. There is also some legalities regarding hospital ships in time of war, Some problems might result from a free ship assisting a ship in distress when a save-for-pay ship shows up looking for profit. Also, since the save-for-pay ships also operate as merchant ships, possibly carrying contraband, they are legitimate targets for U-boats. Being in peril on the sea, and waiting for a tow truck on the side of the road are quite different, and there are legal and moral obligations quite at odds with each other.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
They were present before WWI.
Yes they did. But since there was considerable lag between ship asking for help and the tug arriving, there is always the possibility that they would arrive to find survivors clinging to their boats. Or nothing at all. Not to say that getting the disabled ship back to the port = saving lives.


In the WW1 standard, the tug boat arriving faster than 24 hours would be an act of god.
 
Top