Royal Navy Hospital Ship cancelled in 1952

[uk 75]

According to Jane's the RN laid down a 10,000 ton new build hospital ship
at Barclay Curle Ltd in Glasgow on 19 Feb 1952, only to cancel it on 11 July 1952.

Wonder what this ship looked like, did it become the Uganda, a troopship also used as
a Hospital Ship in the Falklands. The new Royal Yacht Britannia was supposed to be a
Hospital ship (Triang Minic ships even did a model in red cross livery), but I don't think she
ever was used as such. It may have just been cover for her general war role of evacuating the Sovereign to an unknown Commonwealth country (probably Canada or New Zealand)

Anyone know more?

 

[JFC Fuller]

A quick Google books search uncovers the fact that the ships cost would have been £2,000,000 (for comparison Britannia was £1,800,00). Apparently she would have have been called RFA Maine and would have replaced RFA Maine- used in Korea. She was cancelled partly because of the steel shortage at the time, remember that this hit everything, car companies, train purchases, Stockwell bus garage, even the 1952 carrier was to have been made from steel reclaimed from the Hunt class.

The official answer: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1952/jul/23/hospital-ship-cancelled-order#S5CV0504P0_19520723_CWA_13

The RFA Maine to be replaced: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1950/oct/18/hospital-ship-maine#S5CV0478P0_19501018_CWA_30

 

[JFC Fuller]

From: http://www.historicalrfa.org/rfa-maine-ships-details

One would also assume that the intention was that such a ship would have roles beyond just Korea.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It was actually a division and given the overall size of UN forces very, very far from "mere":

RoK: 590,911
USA: 480,000
British Commonwealth: 109,000
Other UN: 27,000

That is 18% of the entire UN non-Korean forces in the war. But I guess we didn't get an 18% appearance in MASH episodes...

 

[Grey Havoc]

That is 18% of the entire UN non-Korean forces in the war. But I guess we didn't get an 18% appearance in MASH episodes...

;D

 

[uk 75]

Chaps. I think you need a Commonwealth Forces in Korea thread somewhere else.

But seriously, does anyone have a clue as to what the RFA Maine 1952 might have looked like?

I am assuming that she would have been similar to the Uganda, which was buiolt at about the same
time and may even have borrowed from the design.

 

[Brickmuppet]

Chaps. I think you need a Commonwealth Forces in Korea thread somewhere else.

But seriously, does anyone have a clue as to what the RFA Maine 1952 might have looked like?

I am assuming that she would have been similar to the Uganda, which was buiolt at about the same
time and may even have borrowed from the design.

The Korean war comments seem germane to the topic as they concern the events and lessons that would have influenced the design, possibly including its cancellation.

As to a relation to Uganda. I doubt it. Uganda was a liner that was converted into a school ship then a hospital ship.

A purpose built hospital ship would be quite different and given the impressive performance of M.A.S.H. type units in Korea an argument could be made that helicopter facilities ought to have figured heavily in it's design. ( So even the random M.A.S.H. comment was germane )

 

[Yellow Palace]

Uganda is too early, she was launched on the 15th of January 1952. However, Kenya (launched 1951) and Uganda were both Barclay Curle ships and about the 10,000 ton mark (depending on which ton we're using; I reckon they were about 19,000 displacement tons). It's not a huge stretch to suggest that the Admiralty might have requested Barclay Curle to produce a hospital ship based on their latest liner, especially since they had been designed for tropical service. This is hypothesis, though, and if the 10,000 tons figure is in fact displacement then can't be anywhere near correct.

Now, she was apparently laid down, which means some plans must have been produced, and the Barclay Curle company records are apparently in the Glasgow University Archives. This might provide a starting point for research.

 

[lenny100]

found this drawing

http://www.rfaaplymouth.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1226

 

[JFC Fuller]

That theory goes against every open source description of this vessel all of which describe a ship designed as a hospital ship from the outset specifically for naval use. Also, your Korean war theory does not work as demonstrated by the use of a hospital ship by the Royal Navy in that conflict, unless you can provide a source to support the claim?

 

[Yellow Palace]

Frankly, it's not surprising that a hospital ship should look like a liner. They both have similar design drivers, so a clean sheet design would be expected to produce a similar type of ship. Yes, I know about USNS Mercy and Comfort: tankers were cheap at the time. The two-stack arrangement only tells us that there are two engine rooms: this could be done to have more power, hence speed (which would be of value for a ship expected to operate in the medical evacuation role) or to divide the machinery for survivability, which might be a concern to a navy but probably not to a commercial line. As I've said above, I suspect that this ship was probably slightly smaller, not larger, than the Kenya and Uganda.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Of course and also the much larger US Navy presence…


Yes a single Brigade from August to December 1950. And during this time they were the only non US and Koean forces deployed by the UN. The US only deployed four divisions in Korea at this time.


Not quite. By the time the Turkish Brigade was deployed the Commonwealth forces were up to two brigades. Further the Turks stayed steady at a single infantry brigade/regiment through the war with the Commonwealth working up to a full division by May 1951 including a range of supporting troops. Not to mention air units and naval forces.


Maybe in comparison to the American troops of 24 Inf Div that they were attached to but I doubt anyone looking at the battle record could say the British Commonwealth forces were surpassed in quality during the Korean War. It was the Commonwealth forces which stoped the massive Chinese Spring Offensive in 1951. Based on the comparative performance if the Chinese had swapped their first and second impulse of their Spring Offensive they would have won the war. By this if they had attacked the American defences first and the Commonwealth defences second (they did it the other way around) they would have broken the UN’s line.

Characterising the British Commonwealth forces as “mere” is either ignorant or offensive.

 

[Thiel]

The two-stack arrangement only tells us that there are two engine rooms: this could be done to have more power, hence speed (which would be of value for a ship expected to operate in the medical evacuation role) or to divide the machinery for survivability, which might be a concern to a navy but probably not to a commercial line. As I've said above, I suspect that this ship was probably slightly smaller, not larger, than the Kenya and Uganda.

Either thath or to keep the height of the engine room to a minimum, much like how it's done on modern RORO ferries.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Once again, that theory goes against what is written in every open source about this ship, as you have already been told. Furthermore the spacing does not indicate that there is a dummy stack. The ship was planned under the 1951-52 estimates according to Desmond Wettern in The Decline of British Sea Power. Whilst in Volume 59 of The Shipbuilder and Marine engine-builder Volume 59 she is described as following:


[font=arial, sans-serif][/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]The new hospital ship will be the first vessel to be constructed for this purpose for the Royal Navy.[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif][/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]The Fairplay International Shipping Journal Volume 179 says the following:[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif][/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]...would have been the first hospital ship built for the Royal Navy...[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif][/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]I patiently await actual evidence for your theory beyond the flawed comment about a dummy stack which has already been answered by others.[/font]

 

[uk 75]

lenny 100

Thank you for the link. I somehow missed it when I was googling. The second funnel is a puzzle.
Neither Britannia nor the troopships of the period (Uganda etc) have it.
The second engine room makes sense. But the funnels seem quite close together.

Interesting what-if for those of us who collect ship models

UK 75

 

[JFC Fuller]

Britannia was a smaller ship than this proposed RFA Maine. Uganda and her sister ship Kenya were, as far as I am aware, not built as troopships but as relatively straightforward passenger cargo ships ordered in 1947 by the British India Steam Navigation Company Ltd. Uganda then got converted into an educational cruise ship prior to a very hasty conversion to a hospital ship for the Falklands, followed by a brief stint as a Troop ship whilst the Stanley airport was reconstructed? Please correct me if I am wrong?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The second stack may be connected to boilers but they may not be part of the propulsion system. Hospitals have heavy requirements for electricity and process heat to power their operations. The aft boilers could be for auxiliary power and steam. A dummy stack on a Geneva convention compliant hospital ship is beyond ridiculous.

 

[uk 75]

Abraham

Thanks for the answer on the second funnel, makes sense to me. As ever I am grateful
to this board for digging out info which is in no convenient form elsewhere.

UK 75

 

[Abraham Gubler]

But we aren’t referring to a liner but to a purpose built hospital ship. The “hotel load” is not about powering entertainment systems that didn’t exist in the 1950s but medical requirements that did. Laundry and ventilation are the two big energy consumers and they need to be supplied at a far higher rate per occupant in a hospital than a hotel.

 

[JFC Fuller]

First of all, the "hotel load" on a modern cruise ship can equal the power required for propulsion. That wasn't true back in 1952, even for the most luxurious liners. In any case, you wouldn't see a separate boiler room devoted to the hotel load back in 1952.

I can agree that the aesthetics of the second stack are a dubious, but the only other explaination would be an unorthodox machinery arrangement or turboelectric propulsion..

I'm still inclined to say that we're looking at a dummy stack and the design in question was a canceled civilian order. As previously stated, an expert could probably offer up a guess as to which shipping line place and then canceled the order. I wonder if Laurence Dunn is still alive?

This is not a cruise ship or a liner, it is a military hospital ship.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The profile drawing doesn't necessarily indicate a purpose built hospital ship, but a commercial liner with a second dummy funnel.

Do you actually bother to read posts? It has been pointed out here multiple times that every source that deals with this vessel describes it specifically as a purpose built hospital ship for the Royal Navy and not as a converted liner.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Not converted, but most likely a liner taken up from a canceled commercial order, at least judging by the (dummy?) funnel depicted on the profile drawing and the odd timing of the requirement. As previously stated, I'm not going to wage a guess as to which line canceled the order.

Once again, read the posts, this was a vessel designed from scratch as a hospital ship, this has been explained to you multiple times. Your theory has been rebutted by multiple times by multiple people and you have provided no evidence so give it up.

The topic is temporarily closed.