4 ms·
The US was never a commercial shipbuilding hub once the transition was made to metal ships. During the timber ship era, the huge quantities of quality lumber th
by mandevil 1y ago
The US was never a commercial shipbuilding hub once the transition was made to metal ships. During the timber ship era, the huge quantities of quality lumber the US had meant that they were world class at shipbuilding, but metal ships? Not so much outside of direct production for the World Wars(1). I mean, the fact that the US passed the Jones Act in 1920 is a pretty strong signal that even then the US was not viable in commercial shipbuilding.
The US Navy, which has been tied for the largest or exclusively the largest in the world for over a century, meant that military shipbuilding was in a better state(2) but still not super competitive- few countries have ever bought the direct products of American yards- yards in the US mostly serve the USN and then sometimes the USN will transfer ships they don't need to other nations.
1: And even then, a whole lot of it was unskilled people learning by doing, and making mistakes.
2: There are many caveats, but it appears that British shipyards were probably more manpower efficient building warships than the US was in WW2. D.K. Brown discusses the evidence in _Nelson to Vanguard_. It's not perfectly clear- because hours were charged to contracts differently in the two countries, the fact that British ships charged fewer hours to a ship doesn't necessarily mean that they used fewer hours in actuality (while everyone counted laborers on a dock for hours, how do you handle hours spent doing accounts payable? Or material deliveries, or training? There are differences in how they were counted between countries, and Brown was unable to correct for them).
It is also true that the US produced warships faster chronologically, so it is possible that the US threw so many bodies at ship construction that they went past the point of manpower efficiency to get less time spent in the yards. But, overall, British shipbuilders seem to have been more manpower efficient than US yards during WW2, as far as warship production.
- philwelch 1y agoConstruction Physics has a good discussion of this as well: https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-cant-the-us-build-ships https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-cant-the-us-build... One thing that really hurt US commercial shipbuilding after WW2 was the glut of surplus Liberty and Victory ships in circulation. Nobody was buying new ships for a long enough time that the shipyards couldn’t stay in business even if they tried.
- alephnerd 1y agoThat's based on the premise that we were a major blue water shipbuilder. We weren't, as data from the mid-20th century showed [0] Japan had a larger blue water shipbuilding capacity than the US by 1910 in both sail and steam. We were on par with newly independent and much poorer Greece (Greece's developmental indicators didn't catch up with Western Europe until the last 3-5 years). [0] - https://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/288698.pdf https://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/288698.pdf
- alephnerd 1y agoTo be fair, we heavily invested in railroads for transcontinental transportation during that era so we didn't have much of a need for long distance seafaring until the World Wars.
- mitthrowaway2 1y agoTo be extra fair, Japan was also heavily investing in railroads at the same time.
- alephnerd 1y agoNot to the same level in the pre-WW2 era which is my point. Please try to read my comments and let them sync in instead to immediately trying to find some point of contention.
- philwelch 1y ago> That's based on the premise that we were a major blue water shipbuilder. We were—during WW2.