Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What a sad situation. These great ships that saved freedom are dying just like the brave men and women who built and manned them
Quote:
LOS ANGELES – The Lane Victory is one of the last of hundreds of hastily built cargo ships that helped win World War II, a testament to “Rosie the Riveter” and thousands of workers – women and men – who toiled on the homefront.
Today, the retired armed Merchant Marine freighter fights age and rust.
Around the country, many naval memorials – proud decommissioned naval ships that played a key role in America’s 20th century wars – languish in increasingly desperate shape, eaten away by corrosion that their volunteers do their best to keep out of sight of tourists, such as the throngs expected this Memorial Day weekend.
Realistically, if humans keep insisting on trying to preserve and save every relic related to war the entire surface of the planet would be covered over. Just how many memorials, battlefields, shrines, pile of battle machinery, does history need in order to remember the good or the bad? Does every human community need a memorial to every war? Seems like that's the trend.
Having done some museum curation-related work in the past I understand a bit about how they select the more significant, meaningful, and educational objects to preserve. You can't save it all and shouldn't even try. So much can and should be preserved in the memories of these veterans who served, not saving every piece of the physical evidence. How many ships served? Does every one of them need to be kept? No. Before anyone suggests it, I am NOT trying to downplay their reasons for wanting relics preserved, nor am I trying to belittle their memory or dedication. I just think much of it is misplaced effort.
Last edited by Parnassia; 05-24-2019 at 12:59 PM..
Victory ships were wartime designs - intended to be built fast and used hard during a short service life with a huge crew. Easy maintenance wasn't part of the equation. Their engineering spaces are chock full of asbestos and other substances of that nature, the skillsets needed to run boilers of that age is disappearing rapidly - and steam propulsion plants are dangerous as all out if you don't know what you're doing. In San Pedro, Lane Victory is in competition with the Iowa, and that's pretty damn tough.
Permanent drydock or a warrior's funeral under the waves seem the only realistic alternatives.
And the article covers something very pertinent - getting the ship is one thing, keeping it maintained (let alone running) is much harder.
I crew on traditional sailing ships, and I can recognize the struggle. So many organizations acquired a vessel or two, then found themselves unable to keep the momentum going.
Victory ships were wartime designs - intended to be built fast and used hard during a short service life with a huge crew. Easy maintenance wasn't part of the equation. Their engineering spaces are chock full of asbestos and other substances of that nature, the skillsets needed to run boilers of that age is disappearing rapidly - and steam propulsion plants are dangerous as all out if you don't know what you're doing. In San Pedro, Lane Victory is in competition with the Iowa, and that's pretty damn tough.
Permanent drydock or a warrior's funeral under the waves seem the only realistic alternatives.
And the article covers something very pertinent - getting the ship is one thing, keeping it maintained (let alone running) is much harder.
I crew on traditional sailing ships, and I can recognize the struggle. So many organizations acquired a vessel or two, then found themselves unable to keep the momentum going.
The Victory Ships are an extreme example, but most WWII artifacts, outside of firearms for some reason, were built to lower standards and were not expected to have a long service life. This was intentional, quantity was preferred to quality. The airplanes, for example, were expected to be shot down while still relatively new. Of course some firearms, particularly British, were produced with a "war finish" and stamped as such (outfits like Webley have their reputations to think about you know, old chap...) but seem to me to be as well-made mechanically as any. Of course on the losing side, particularly Japan, some of the late firearms production might be considered dicey.
There is a Victory Ship moored in Tampa. It has dozens of volunteers to keep it in operation. They have tours and the ship has a short 'cruise' every now and then.
Realistically, if humans keep insisting on trying to preserve and save every relic related to war the entire surface of the planet would be covered over. Just how many memorials, battlefields, shrines, pile of battle machinery, does history need in order to remember the good or the bad? Does every human community need a memorial to every war? Seems like that's the trend.
Quite right.
It's one thing to preserve and display a firearm or a tank. A ship is a massive - and extremely expensive project. And as the years pass, subsequent generations are going to be less and less keen on preserving one (or more) of every last type of submarine and destroyer and cruiser and battleship and aircraft carrier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M3 Mitch
The Victory Ships are an extreme example, but most WWII artifacts, outside of firearms for some reason, were built to lower standards and were not expected to have a long service life. This was intentional, quantity was preferred to quality. The airplanes, for example, were expected to be shot down while still relatively new. Of course some firearms, particularly British, were produced with a "war finish" and stamped as such (outfits like Webley have their reputations to think about you know, old chap...) but seem to me to be as well-made mechanically as any. Of course on the losing side, particularly Japan, some of the late firearms production might be considered dicey.
As they say, quantity is a quality all its own.
Individual panzers were superior to T-34s. But the 64,000+ T-34s the USSR cranked out during the war were collectively better than the less than 18,000 panzers Germany produced.
It is very sad but like the above post...we can't save everything. Choose important ships and crafts and drag others out in the ocean to sink, I guess.
I've toured a smaller sub and a battleship and did appreciate the experience.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
