FAST CARGO BOATS

Evening Post, Volume CXXXV, Issue 19, 23 January 1943, Page 6

FAST CARGO BOATS

BEST IN WARTIME

BRITAIN BUILDING MORE

A higher proportion of fast cargo < ships is being built now than was the case a year ago. Writing in the Lon- \ don "Daily Telegraph" its naval cor- < respondent, Commander Edwards, said 1 that this is being achieved without 1 reduction in the number of ships turned i UThere was much to be said both for and against the faster ship, but on < balance it was the better ship to have i in wartime, provided that its produc- < tion did not slow down the total ship- s building output. \ The main disadvantages of the faster , iship were: ' { It is more expensive both to pro- ' duce and to run, since the engines . cost more and the fuel consumption i is higher. , , . , The space taken up by engines and { boilers is greater, and bunker space j has to be larger to allow for increased fuel, consumption. This means a reduction in the cargo capacity of ] the ship. The chief arguments in favour of the i faster ship in wartime were: , It can do more voyages in a year, 1 and therefore deliver a greater volume of cargo in a series of voyages over a fairly long period, despite the fact that its cargo capacity per ' voyage is less than that of a slower ship of the same tonnage. i On any one voyage it is in the "danger area" for a shorter time. It is slightly more difficult for a U-boat to attack. The last was a point requiring some explanation. If a boat was in an at- , tacking position when the ship was sighted, the difficulty of the actual at-tack-was not greatly increased by an increase in the speed of the target ship, except in cases of low visibility. The U-boat might then not have time to turn on to a firing course before the ship had passed. On the other hand the increase of speed increased the effect on the aim of the torpedo of errors in estimating the course and speed of the target. A greater percentage of misses was therefore to be expected, particularly if the torpedoes were fired at long range. If a U-boat was not actually in an attacking position when the ship was sighted, the faster ship would reduce the chances of the U-boat being able to get in an attack, since the discrepancy between the low submerged speed of the U-boat and the speed of the target would be greater in the case of the faster ship. CHANCES OF ESCAPE. In the case of a series of U-boat attacks, the advantages of the faster ship were even more marked. In this type of attack U-boats surfaced well astern of the target after delivering one attack, and then. worked round durihg dark hours or out of visibility distance to a position ahead of.the target, ready to dive and attack again. An increase in the speed of the target of the order of four knots would not prevent this type of attack, but it would reduce the number of times such attacks could be delivered during a voyage. ♦The faster ship might in certain circumstances, such as the approach of darkness or low visibility, haye a better chance of escape if being chased by a surface raider. , That it had become possible to build more fast ships without any reduction in the total shipbuilding output was due to careful and progressive organisation of the industry. Engines had always been the bottle-neck in our shipbuilding industry. The building of more fast ships would, because of the greater complication of.- their machinery, tend to increase this bottleneck were this not offset by an increase in the engine building capacity of the industry. This had been achieved by organisation, rather than the setting up of new plants. Today there were many inland firms formerly concerned with general engineering who were now engaged on the far more specialised work of marine engine building or the making of parts for marine engines.