Razor blades? (was: Re: cole: a total loss?)
Dwayne Allen Day
: The Stark has not, to my knowledge, become razor blades or Honda
: Accords. I was under the impression that she and the ships that have
: not been transferred to fleet reserve might be up for sale or sold?
Where does most warship steel end up? I know that most recycled steel
from cars and commercial ships is considered "low grade" and ends up in
rebars (reinforcing bars for concrete). Is this where warship steel goes
too? (My guess is that razor blades are not made from recycled steel.)
D
Andrew Toppan
>too? (My guess is that razor blades are not made from recycled steel.)
In fact somebody once called Gilette to get their opinion on this, and they
stated they use entirely new materials.
--
Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/
US Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem - http://www.uss-salem.org/
Dwayne Allen Day
:>too? (My guess is that razor blades are not made from recycled steel.)
: In fact somebody once called Gilette to get their opinion on this, and they
: stated they use entirely new materials.
Thanks. My guess is that razor blades require a medium or high grade
steel so that they don't fracture, break easily, etc.
Autos are turned into rebars (in fact, there is a great article on this in
the current issue of Invention and Technology--trust me, it makes the
subject of auto-crushing interesting). My guess is that this is where
ships end up as well. Recycled steel naturally has impurities (like paint
and chem residues) and won't go into products that require high quality.
D
Chris Vail
> :>too? (My guess is that razor blades are not made from recycled
> steel.)
>
> : In fact somebody once called Gilette to get their opinion on this,
> and they: stated they use entirely new materials.
>
> Thanks. My guess is that razor blades require a medium or high grade
> steel so that they don't fracture, break easily, etc.
>
> Autos are turned into rebars (in fact, there is a great article on
> this in the current issue of Invention and Technology--trust me, it
> makes the subject of auto-crushing interesting). My guess is that
> this is where ships end up as well. Recycled steel naturally has
> impurities (like paint and chem residues) and won't go into products
> that require high quality.
>
> D
I work for a large steel recycler (www.chaparralsteel.com). We melt
thousands of cars every week (we have a "garbage disposal" which can
digest a Buick in 3 minutes, and turn it to tiny chunks) (be careful
where you park your car when visiting the plant).
We use massive arc furnaces to melt the scrap and produce the raw
product which is then rolled according to customer demand. Using
electricity instead of coal produces a purer, stronger product. The
composition of the final product is entirely dependant on what the
customer is willing to pay for. In most cases, the recycled product
is far purer than the steel produced from ore. We'd be delighted to
have some crushed Naval ships to recycle--we pay premium prices
for premium product. However, call before sending us the steel from
a nuke--that stuff can get tricky.
Our mill operators will tell the scrap crane operator to load 63 tons
of Chevys, 16 tons of Toyotas (with that good Japanese steel), the
odd BMW or Volvo, and spice up the mix with a couple tons of shredded
dishwashers. After melting, they'll expect to get, for example, 12
tons of slag, 9 tons of rebar, and 38 tons of I beam from that batch
run. It is, actually, pretty fascinating.
Chris
-------------------------------------------------
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dwayne Allen Day
: I work for a large steel recycler (www.chaparralsteel.com). We melt
: thousands of cars every week (we have a "garbage disposal" which can
: digest a Buick in 3 minutes, and turn it to tiny chunks) (be careful
: where you park your car when visiting the plant).
Check out the article I mentioned. I actually found it interesting.
: We use massive arc furnaces to melt the scrap and produce the raw
: product which is then rolled according to customer demand. Using
: electricity instead of coal produces a purer, stronger product. The
: composition of the final product is entirely dependant on what the
: customer is willing to pay for. In most cases, the recycled product
: is far purer than the steel produced from ore. We'd be delighted to
How do you get a purer product? Is it because you burn out the
impurities?
I wonder how ship steel compares to auto steel. The ships are less
environmentally friendly, with PCBs and asbestos being common.
D
Andrew Toppan
>I wonder how ship steel compares to auto steel. The ships are less
>environmentally friendly, with PCBs and asbestos being common.
But all that (should) get separated from the steel at the breaking yard.
(Especially since asbestos and PCBs often surround pipe and cable. Depending
on material the pipe may be worth a lot more than steel - and copper cable is
always very valuable on the scrap market)
Brian
NAVCLITS.....ROTFL!
Bob McKellar wrote:
> Halt, cease, desist and cut this shit out!
>
> The Naval Cliché and Legend Information Technology Systems Command (NAVCLITS)
> has designated the "Ships Into Razor Blades" concept as an officially protected
> Naval Cliché. This was done after an exhaustive survey which failed to find a
> single current or former member of the Sea Services who had not used the phrase
> at some time or another. Due to its recognized status, this legend has been
> proclaimed exempt from debunking.
>
> Similar action is pending on the following:
>
> "Shit rolls downhill."
> "If it moves, salute it, if it don't, paint it."
> "Saltpeter in the food"
> "Ice in the swimming pool"
> "Ask The Chief."
> "If the Navy wanted you to have a [wife/family/car/life], they would have
> issued you one."
> "If it ain't broke, do PMS on it."
> "If you don't like the Navy, just do your twenty and get out."
> "That's not my job, let [XXX] division take care of it."
> "Sailors belong on ships, and ships belong at sea."
> "Navy Regs says [ insert appropriate fallacious bullshit ]."
> "We didn't do it that way on the [XXX]."
>
> NAVCLITS is actively seeking other nominations.
>
> Bob McKellar
Bob McKellar
> Dwayne Allen Day <wayn...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
>
> >too? (My guess is that razor blades are not made from recycled steel.)
>
> In fact somebody once called Gilette to get their opinion on this, and they
> stated they use entirely new materials.
>
> --
> Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
> "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
> Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/
> US Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem - http://www.uss-salem.org/
Halt, cease, desist and cut this shit out!
Mike Crowe
<b...@coastcomp.com> writes
>"We didn't do it that way on the [XXX]."
>
That happens in all walks of life. Someone joins a company and they are
forever saying 'At my last firm we did it such and such way'
But back to the navy, I am being pestered by one particular member of
the H.M.S.Collingwood Association to do this, that or the other 'as we
have it in my other Association'. There is one reply which fits very
well in the Royal Navy. "Different ships, different cap tallies"
But when someone shows a 'good way' of doing something, an idea from
their last ship, company etc. then incorporate it.
Mike
Michael 'Mike' Crowe. Memb. Sec. National Service (Royal Navy) Association
R.N.Shipmates, the system for finding those who have served in the Royal Navy
H.M.S.Collingwood Association 3rd Annual Reunion. Babbacombe.
30th March - 2nd April 2001. email me for membership and details
Mike Maxwell
"There's the right way, the wrong way, and the Navy way."
"Ensigns are like mushrooms--keep them in the dark, and feed them _."
And this might be a little off-topic, but don't Navy supply catalogs mention
left-handed monkey wrenches, sound powered phone batteries, and relative
bearing grease? (I'm sure there are more!)
--
Mike Maxwell
Mike_M...@sil.org
Andrew Chaplin
>
> "There's the right way, the wrong way, and the Navy way."
>
> "Ensigns are like mushrooms--keep them in the dark, and feed them _."
>
> And this might be a little off-topic, but don't Navy supply catalogs mention
> left-handed monkey wrenches, sound powered phone batteries, and relative
> bearing grease? (I'm sure there are more!)
>
and spools of shoreline and waterline. On taking over as a duty wallah
don't forget to account for the keys to the drill deck and parade
ground.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Robert J. Bartolacci
And don't forget relative bearing grease, mail buoys, etc...
Bob
> There are NATO stock numbers for skyhooks, buckets of checkered paint
> and spools of shoreline and waterline. On taking over as a duty wallah
> don't forget to account for the keys to the drill deck and parade
> ground.
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Chris Vail
> : I work for a large steel recycler (www.chaparralsteel.com). We melt
> : thousands of cars every week (we have a "garbage disposal" which can
> : digest a Buick in 3 minutes, and turn it to tiny chunks) (be careful
> : where you park your car when visiting the plant).
>
> Check out the article I mentioned. I actually found it interesting.
I'm enthralled watching a smushed Toyota being digested in the
shredder.
> : We use massive arc furnaces to melt the scrap and produce the raw
> : product which is then rolled according to customer demand. Using
> : electricity instead of coal produces a purer, stronger product. The
> : composition of the final product is entirely dependant on what the
> : customer is willing to pay for. In most cases, the recycled product
> : is far purer than the steel produced from ore. We'd be delighted to
>
> How do you get a purer product? Is it because you burn out the
> impurities?
A purer product is not necessarily a stronger product. The strongest
products are alloys--tungsten, nickel and other items are added to
the metal during the refining process. Real strength comes from the
manufacturing process itself: I beams, H beams, and round product are
the most popular, but I saw a rectangular product on the lot t'other
day that was 36" x 12" of solid, high grade steel. I've no idea who
the customer for that was, or its intended purpose, but I'll guarantee
I didn't want it dropped on my foot.
Some alloys are heavier than the the steel. These will probably
remain in the final product and are difficult and expensive to remove
(but we can do it if the customer requests). The lighter materials
from the original scrap: cloth, rubber, plastic form the slag, some of
which is used in another manufacturing process that produces cement,
but the majority is buried in a certified landfill.
> I wonder how ship steel compares to auto steel. The ships are less
> environmentally friendly, with PCBs and asbestos being common.
>
> D
Steel is steel, regardless of its use. The content/purity of the
final product is of grave concern to our QC people. I'd imagine that
older (WWII) ships used a purer, stronger steel than modern ones.
Modern ships (those which have any armor plating at all) rely on
ceramic and layering technologies rather than on the strength of
the steel itself. A shaped charge is WAY too effective against thick
steel, regardless of its strength and purity.
ISTR reading an account about D-Day, where the BB Texas exchanged
fire with German tanks, and the tanks scored a direct hit on the
Texas. As you know, a BB has heavy, hard and thick steel armor, yet
the German 88MM gun (a popgun by modern standards) dealt it a
staggering blow.
The purer the steel, the faster it rusts. A ship built with good
steel uses a lot of paint. However, there are modern coatings (some
of which we apply during the manufacturing process) that can change
this pretty dramatically. I suspect that a modern sailor spends a
lot less time with the paintbrush than did his/her counterpart a
generation ago.
Jeff Crowell
> My guess is that razor blades require a medium or high grade
> steel so that they don't fracture, break easily, etc.
Actually, razor blades are pretty brittle.
> Recycled steel naturally has impurities (like paint
> and chem residues) and won't go into products that require high quality.
The melt process burns off most of this stuff.
Jeff
Vince Brannigan
Jeff Crowell wrote:
> Dwayne Allen Day wrote:
> > My guess is that razor blades require a medium or high grade
> > steel so that they don't fracture, break easily, etc.
>
> Actually, razor blades are pretty brittle.
not necessarily. Remember the Gillete Techmatic? it had a long srand of very
flexible razor blade that was unwound from one spool and wound up on another.
Most Razors have a stiffness requirement. the easiest way to get stiffness and
a sharp edge is to use a brittle steel. If you want sharp and "tough" your
adopt a different strategy.
Vince
Mike Maxwell
I'm curious: what modern ships do have armor? Do river boats?
>I suspect that a modern sailor spends a
>lot less time with the paintbrush than did
>his/her counterpart a generation ago.
No wonder retention rates are down :-0.
--
Mike Maxwell
Mike_M...@sil.org
Brian
Mike Maxwell wrote:
> >Modern ships (those which have any armor plating at all) ...
>
> I'm curious: what modern ships do have armor? Do river boats?
AOR's and AOE's (not sure about the AOE6 Class) had a belt of armor. I
recall hearing 8 inches but that seems a bit high. Not all the way
around but it did cover a decent amount of the hull.
Mike Crowe
deja.com> writes
>
>Steel is steel, regardless of its use. The content/purity of the
>final product is of grave concern to our QC people. I'd imagine that
>older (WWII) ships used a purer, stronger steel than modern ones.
I served on H.M.S.Gambia, a Cruiser in 1958/9. She was built in 1942, so
was built with W.W.II steel. However H.M.S.Belfast was built in 1939
thus using pre W.W.II steel and I have been informed that this is the
reason why H.M.S.Belfast has been preserved at London and not
H.M.S.Gambia.
Coincidence? H.M.S.Gambia Reunion Weekend starts today and I am just off
to meet up with one chap in particular who was in my mess on board!
Up Spirits
B F Lake
<1BI$uIARh+...@mikecrowe.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <8sn7qd$6us$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Chris Vail <chris_vail@my-
> deja.com> writes
> >
> >Steel is steel, regardless of its use. The content/purity of the
> >final product is of grave concern to our QC people. I'd imagine that
> >older (WWII) ships used a purer, stronger steel than modern ones.
>
> I served on H.M.S.Gambia, a Cruiser in 1958/9. She was built in 1942, so
> was built with W.W.II steel. However H.M.S.Belfast was built in 1939
> thus using pre W.W.II steel and I have been informed that this is the
> reason why H.M.S.Belfast has been preserved at London and not
> H.M.S.Gambia.
>
Bartlet or something like that- he says the 1930s rearmament /shipbuilding
program in Britain exceeded the steel-making capacity of the industry and
they had to import steel from Czechoslovakia to build ships.. This source
was cut off suddenly!
There is confusing info about during the war. Some books say all steel
had to be imported. This means sheets and tubes of steel came over by
ship. One point is how well it was protected from corrosion enroute before
being used in ships and another thing about that or domestic steel if any
was how it was stored prior to use in the chaotic shipyards in Britain.
If they used steel that was already rusting that would explain a lot.
The above book referred to an Admiralty study on British yards done ~1942
as to why they couldn't produce ships on time or as much as needed and why
repairs took so long. It turned out the yards had layouts that made no
sense and were hopelessly inefficient and employed far too many men with
low productivity due to backwards machinery and plant layout etc etc.
This fits with Deighton's scathing book about British industry at that time
also.
Naturally we don't see much about this, as it is nothing to brag about,
but it is a legacy of Britain not making it all the way into the Second
Industrial Revolution in late 1800s and getting left behind by Germany and
the USA. Class attitudes and granting of vote to workers who then had the
power to resist being put out of work by modernization are usual suspects
for the reason. (Supposedly this got turned around by Thatcher finally)
It is true that wartime British ships didn't seem to last long. Not sure
it was because of the steel itself though. Especially if it was US steel?
Cruisers such as HMCS ONTARIO , like Mike's GAMBIA were soon gone. ONTARIO
was delayed completing in Belfast over a year due to shortage of steel.
There wasn't cathodic protection for those ships , the paint used was not
especially scientific (someone told me they used to make their own paint in
the paint locker using a powder, and that is why the ships never were quite
the same colour all over or as other ships??). But all cruisers , even US
ones were also set aside "early" for other reasons.
The frigates and destroyers of wartime construction had to be scrapped
when the oil and feedwater tanks in the hull rusted through after 15 or 20
years. Holes above those could be patched over (and were!) but when these
went that was it.
So it could be the quality of the steel as made in the mill, or how it was
stored during /prior to construction, or how maintained by the ship/ repair
facilities when in a ship. In the 1950s, when you chipped paint in HMCS
ONTARIO, and were able to lift up dinner plate sized chunks of several
layers of old paint and found wet corroded bare metal underneath, you have
to be suspicious! She was 12 years old then.
Of course along with all that, the other thing about those ships was the
wiring with the old lead etc, not worth re-wiring and just hopeless
prospects for renewing. Was better to build new. This makes the USN WW2
ships' longevity and FRAM business so remarkable. They must have built
them right from day one even during the war.
Anyone got some real info about this , which seems to be kept well to the
back in most of the ra ra books about how the war went??? (leaving out
nationalistic outrage --I am a fan--I just would like some facts)
Thanks,
Barry
Peter Skelton
>Mike Crowe <mi...@rnshipmates.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
><1BI$uIARh+...@mikecrowe.demon.co.uk>...
>> In article <8sn7qd$6us$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Chris Vail <chris_vail@my-
>> deja.com> writes
>> >
>> >Steel is steel, regardless of its use. The content/purity of the
>> >final product is of grave concern to our QC people. I'd imagine that
>> >older (WWII) ships used a purer, stronger steel than modern ones.
>>
>> I served on H.M.S.Gambia, a Cruiser in 1958/9. She was built in 1942, so
>> was built with W.W.II steel. However H.M.S.Belfast was built in 1939
>> thus using pre W.W.II steel and I have been informed that this is the
>> reason why H.M.S.Belfast has been preserved at London and not
>> H.M.S.Gambia.
>>
>In , ISTR , "Engage the Enemy More Closely" by- memory gone again -Corelli
>Bartlet or something like that- he says the 1930s rearmament /shipbuilding
>program in Britain exceeded the steel-making capacity of the industry and
>they had to import steel from Czechoslovakia to build ships.. This source
>was cut off suddenly!
IIRC, the crucial item was armour plate. I have a note here that says the
deck plate for Illustrious got out just in time.
> There is confusing info about during the war. Some books say all steel
>had to be imported. This means sheets and tubes of steel came over by
>ship. One point is how well it was protected from corrosion enroute before
>being used in ships and another thing about that or domestic steel if any
>was how it was stored prior to use in the chaotic shipyards in Britain.
>If they used steel that was already rusting that would explain a lot.
Steel takes a lot less space than ore and, incidentally, less manpower.
Britain was short of shipping and people so it made sense to import steel,
rather than filling out the UK's steel capacity and/or building additional
mills when Swedish and other continental ore supplies were cut off. (Not
replacing ancient mills (and other industrial capacity) was inexcusable,
especially late in the war.)
> The above book referred to an Admiralty study on British yards done ~1942
>as to why they couldn't produce ships on time or as much as needed and why
>repairs took so long. It turned out the yards had layouts that made no
>sense and were hopelessly inefficient and employed far too many men with
>low productivity due to backwards machinery and plant layout etc etc.
>This fits with Deighton's scathing book about British industry at that time
>also.
Without the British industrial record is not exemplary, Deighton has been
caught going up on his lines once or twice.
--
Peter Skelton
Chris Vail
"B F Lake" <bfl...@coastnet.com> wrote:
> Mike Crowe <mi...@rnshipmates.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> <1BI$uIARh+...@mikecrowe.demon.co.uk>...
> > deja.com> writes
> > >
> > >Steel is steel, regardless of its use. The content/purity of the
> > >final product is of grave concern to our QC people. I'd imagine
> > >that older (WWII) ships used a purer, stronger steel than modern
> > >ones.
> >
> > I served on H.M.S.Gambia, a Cruiser in 1958/9. She was built in
> > 1942, so was built with W.W.II steel. However H.M.S.Belfast was
> > built in 1939 thus using pre W.W.II steel and I have been informed
> > that this is the reason why H.M.S.Belfast has been preserved at
> > London and not H.M.S.Gambia.
> >
> rearmament /shipbuilding program in Britain exceeded the steel-making
> capacity of the industry and they had to import steel from
> Czechoslovakia to build ships.. This source was cut off suddenly!
>
> all steel had to be imported. This means sheets and tubes of steel
> came over by ship. One point is how well it was protected from
> corrosion enroute before being used in ships and another thing about
> that or domestic steel if any was how it was stored prior to use in
> the chaotic shipyards in Britain. If they used steel that was
> already rusting that would explain a lot.
>
> done ~1942 as to why they couldn't produce ships on time or as much
> as needed and why repairs took so long. It turned out the yards had
> layouts that made no sense and were hopelessly inefficient and
> employed far too many men with low productivity due to backwards
> machinery and plant layout etc etc. This fits with Deighton's
> scathing book about British industry at that time also.
>
> would like some facts.
Here in Texas, the term "british steel" (with or without the capital-
ization) is met with the kind of language that would embarass the
saltiest CPO that ever walked a deck.
Our steel recycling plant just south of Richmond VA is now producing
at or near its designed capacity, but this is only a recent development.
This plant was a 9 digit investment on the part of this company, and
ramping up to full operation was a time-and-cost consuming process
that is only now coming to a end with the announcement of "full pro-
duction".
However, we just couldn't produce a gazillion tons of steel, put it
out on the lot, and put a "For Sale" sign on it, hoping that passing
motorists might be interested. We had to develop a market for the
steel for that plant, even before we had the steel itself to sell.
To "prime the pump" of steel marketing, we purchased 20,000 tons of
steel from a British company, which came on two ships. Our idea was
to sell this product below our cost, just to get new customers.
The steel was shipped to our plant, unloaded onto the lot, and
inspected by our QC people.
It was RUSTING CRAP. It didn't even meet the minimum ASME specs,
much less our own much higher standards. We couldn't sell an ounce of
it. We had paid many thousands in shipping costs for what amounted
to a product that was only marginally purer than the shredded cars
that we use as raw material. The British company got paid only
slightly more than what we would've paid for the same tonnage of
shredded Fords. Lawsuits were threatened on both sides, but common
sense finally prevailed.
That was only a few months ago. If you tell me that WWII British
ships were built of inferior steel, I'll add that things haven't
improved much in the last half century.
Maybe the US does make a better ship. T'would be interesting to
compare the longevity figures for the two countries.
Keith Willshaw
"B F Lake" <bfl...@coastnet.com> wrote in message
news:01c03aa3$b4c40780$LocalHost@bflake...
> Mike Crowe <mi...@rnshipmates.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> <1BI$uIARh+...@mikecrowe.demon.co.uk>...
> > deja.com> writes
> > >
> > >Steel is steel, regardless of its use. The content/purity of the
> > >final product is of grave concern to our QC people. I'd imagine that
> > >older (WWII) ships used a purer, stronger steel than modern ones.
> >
> > I served on H.M.S.Gambia, a Cruiser in 1958/9. She was built in 1942, so
> > was built with W.W.II steel. However H.M.S.Belfast was built in 1939
> > thus using pre W.W.II steel and I have been informed that this is the
> > reason why H.M.S.Belfast has been preserved at London and not
> > H.M.S.Gambia.
> >
> Bartlet or something like that- he says the 1930s rearmament /shipbuilding
> program in Britain exceeded the steel-making capacity of the industry and
> they had to import steel from Czechoslovakia to build ships.. This source
> was cut off suddenly!
>
> There is confusing info about during the war. Some books say all steel
> had to be imported. This means sheets and tubes of steel came over by
> ship. One point is how well it was protected from corrosion enroute
before
> being used in ships and another thing about that or domestic steel if any
> was how it was stored prior to use in the chaotic shipyards in Britain.
> If they used steel that was already rusting that would explain a lot.
>
Given that my home town in the North of England was a major
producer of iron and steel I would suggest this was less
than accurate. There were certainly some special grades
of steel imported and importation of certain ball bearings
from Sweden continued (by air) throughout the war.
There was a major problem for a while with supplies of Iron
Ore since Swedish Ore was both higher grade and cheaper
than locally mined ore. The local mines had been closed
in the depression and had to be re-opened rather rapidly.
A great many steel plants had been closed during the
depression of course, just as in the US.
Note that at the end of the war those mines were closed
again and the remaining steel plants rely on imported
Iron Ore (and increasingly imported coking coal)
> The above book referred to an Admiralty study on British yards done ~1942
> as to why they couldn't produce ships on time or as much as needed and why
> repairs took so long. It turned out the yards had layouts that made no
> sense and were hopelessly inefficient and employed far too many men with
> low productivity due to backwards machinery and plant layout etc etc.
> This fits with Deighton's scathing book about British industry at that
time
> also.
>
This persisted right up to the demise of the shipbuilding industry
in the 70's. I recall the Haveron Hill Shipyard of Swan Hunter
had aroung 60 different trades , all of whom jealously guarded
their little fiefdoms
In the Offshore Oil Construction Yard I was working in their were
4 Trades but that had its origin in a Boiler manufacturer not
a shipyard.
> Naturally we don't see much about this, as it is nothing to brag about,
> but it is a legacy of Britain not making it all the way into the Second
> Industrial Revolution in late 1800s and getting left behind by Germany and
> the USA. Class attitudes and granting of vote to workers who then had the
> power to resist being put out of work by modernization are usual suspects
> for the reason. (Supposedly this got turned around by Thatcher finally)
>
Its more to do with the peculiar institutions of the ship building
industry and the power of their trades unions. Other Industries
were nothing like as bad
By the time Margaret Thatcher came to power the industry had
gone leaving only the rump building warships.
> It is true that wartime British ships didn't seem to last long. Not sure
> it was because of the steel itself though. Especially if it was US steel?
> Cruisers such as HMCS ONTARIO , like Mike's GAMBIA were soon gone.
ONTARIO
> was delayed completing in Belfast over a year due to shortage of steel.
> There wasn't cathodic protection for those ships , the paint used was not
> especially scientific (someone told me they used to make their own paint
in
> the paint locker using a powder, and that is why the ships never were
quite
> the same colour all over or as other ships??). But all cruisers , even
US
> ones were also set aside "early" for other reasons.
> The frigates and destroyers of wartime construction had to be scrapped
> when the oil and feedwater tanks in the hull rusted through after 15 or 20
> years. Holes above those could be patched over (and were!) but when these
> went that was it.
>
> So it could be the quality of the steel as made in the mill, or how it was
> stored during /prior to construction, or how maintained by the ship/
repair
> facilities when in a ship. In the 1950s, when you chipped paint in HMCS
> ONTARIO, and were able to lift up dinner plate sized chunks of several
> layers of old paint and found wet corroded bare metal underneath, you have
> to be suspicious! She was 12 years old then.
>
You have to be a little careful here. Warships were built to Admiralty
specification and many of the Yards could and did build merchant
ships that lasted many more years. The same steel works produced
steel for structures such as bridges that are still in use today.
The Steel for the Bridges over the Tyne and the Sydney Harbor Bridge
were all produced from the same rollling mills and are still
good so I would suggest the initial preparation and painting
were more likely to be the problem
I would also point out that the ships were worked VERY hard
in WW2 and that some ships of that vintage, such as HMS Belfast
are still very much extant.
Keith
B F Lake
> The Steel for the Bridges over the Tyne and the Sydney Harbor Bridge
> were all produced from the same rollling mills and are still
> good so I would suggest the initial preparation and painting
> were more likely to be the problem
>
> I would also point out that the ships were worked VERY hard
> in WW2 and that some ships of that vintage, such as HMS Belfast
> are still very much extant.
The reason I suspect handling time is when in 1985 the Canadian steel
vendor supplied the steel to make the first of the new Canadian frigates
using the latest shipbuilding techniques from the States, the steel was
rejected by the navy QA people as it was too rough-surfaced and it rusted
while awaiting assembly lying there in the yard. It seems there are "new"
ways to make steel that it comes out real smooth and this stuff didn't cut
it. The ship was further delayed while the contractors tried to weasel
out of it and use the stuff anyway ISTR, but eventually the steel vendor
had to go learn how to do it right and the yard got proper steel in the
end.
So it could be the WW2 steel was ok or was too rough but was not handled
right to compensate for what kind it was . If it was rusting and they
just slapped some red lead on it and launched the new ship that wouldn't
make for a long life either.
Ore quality is interesting as a factor. How about coal? ISTR that Welsh
coal was the type needed for ship's use (heat per amount?) and other coals
were unacceptable with everything in between. (when they discovered coal
on Vancouver's Island that was as good as Welsh coal it helped the
British decide to keep the place)
Would steel makers in wartime Britain have trouble getting good coal and
would that matter for making coke or heating the furnace or whatever they
do that would affect the quality of the steel?
Thanks,
Barry
Keith Willshaw
"Chris Vail" <chris...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8spq3r$a9f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <01c03aa3$b4c40780$LocalHost@bflake>,
Was that Steel produced in Britain or just purchased
from a British Stockholder ?
The reason I ask is that the world market is awash
with low grade steel from 3rd world producers
If this was quality steel from a British Mill it would have
the mill certificates to show the grade and if they were
falsified you'd have good case to go to court with.
Of course if you bought the lowest cost steel you
could find and didnt get the mill certificates ....
Keith
Chris Vail
"Keith Willshaw" <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> "Chris Vail" <chris...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8spq3r$a9f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <01c03aa3$b4c40780$LocalHost@bflake>,
>
> >
> >
> > compare the longevity figures for the two countries.
> >
> > Chris
> > -------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> from a British Stockholder ?
>
> The reason I ask is that the world market is awash
> with low grade steel from 3rd world producers
>
> If this was quality steel from a British Mill it would have
> the mill certificates to show the grade and if they were
> falsified you'd have good case to go to court with.
>
> Of course if you bought the lowest cost steel you
> could find and didnt get the mill certificates ....
>
> Keith
I'm the computer geek, not the mill operator. So any info I have
is of the water-cooler variety. However, I do know that we have
partnered with British Steel on a couple of occasions, and we have
cozy arrangements with several British firms on steel, electrical
power, and other items of interest. This steel was purchased from
British Steel and shipped from merry old England. Now, most of it
has been re-smelted into stuff that meets our customer's requirements.
But t'was a costly undertaking, and really cost us our customer's
confidence in us: for some orders we were 6 months late......it looks
pretty bad on the bottom line. I doubt we'll ever make THAT mistake
again.
Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Willshaw
"B F Lake" <bfl...@coastnet.com> wrote in message
news:01c03aa3$b4c40780$LocalHost@bflake...
> Mike Crowe <mi...@rnshipmates.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> <1BI$uIARh+...@mikecrowe.demon.co.uk>...
> > deja.com> writes
> > >
> > >Steel is steel, regardless of its use. The content/purity of the
> > >final product is of grave concern to our QC people. I'd imagine that
> > >older (WWII) ships used a purer, stronger steel than modern ones.
> >
> > I served on H.M.S.Gambia, a Cruiser in 1958/9. She was built in 1942, so
> > was built with W.W.II steel. However H.M.S.Belfast was built in 1939
> > thus using pre W.W.II steel and I have been informed that this is the
> > reason why H.M.S.Belfast has been preserved at London and not
> > H.M.S.Gambia.
> >
> Bartlet or something like that- he says the 1930s rearmament /shipbuilding
> program in Britain exceeded the steel-making capacity of the industry and
> they had to import steel from Czechoslovakia to build ships.. This source
> was cut off suddenly!
>
> There is confusing info about during the war. Some books say all steel
> had to be imported. This means sheets and tubes of steel came over by
> ship. One point is how well it was protected from corrosion enroute
before
> being used in ships and another thing about that or domestic steel if any
> was how it was stored prior to use in the chaotic shipyards in Britain.
> If they used steel that was already rusting that would explain a lot.
>
> as to why they couldn't produce ships on time or as much as needed and why
> repairs took so long. It turned out the yards had layouts that made no
> sense and were hopelessly inefficient and employed far too many men with
> low productivity due to backwards machinery and plant layout etc etc.
> This fits with Deighton's scathing book about British industry at that
time
> also.
>
> but it is a legacy of Britain not making it all the way into the Second
> Industrial Revolution in late 1800s and getting left behind by Germany and
> the USA. Class attitudes and granting of vote to workers who then had the
> power to resist being put out of work by modernization are usual suspects
> for the reason. (Supposedly this got turned around by Thatcher finally)
>
To follow up on the details of UK Steel production I found some
figures for 1937 that are interesting
Tonnage figures in Millions of tons
Country Tonnage Tons perCapita
USA 51 0.4
Germany 19.8 0.18
USSR 17.5 0.1
Britain 13.0 0.28
France 7.9 0.19
Japan 5.8 0.07
Italy 2.3 0.05
So adjusted for population British Steel production
was pretty good , behind the USA but ahead of
Germany , USSR and France
The figures for 1999 show a different story
Country Tonnage
China 90
USA 70
Japan 68.5
fUSSR 61
Germany 31
Korea 30
Italy 18
France 15
Britain 12
source International Iron and Steel Institute
on line at http://www.worldsteel.org/iisi/index.html
The British Steel Industry has been without Government
support since the late 70's and is now a mere
ghost of what it was. It has lost 10% of its market
in the last year and will likely all but disappear in
the next few years since the rump is now owned by a
Dutch conglomerate currently making massive losses.
despite being amongst the most efficient , in terms of
man hours per ton in the world.
Already Canada , Spain and Turkey all produce more
steel than the UK. The town I grew up in was a much
a steel town as anywhere in Pa. Middlesbrough
was founded on a river with Coal to the North
Ironstone to the South and Limestone to the
West. The South Bank of the River all 10 miles
was lined with Blast Furnaces , Rolling Mills
and Coke Ovens
It's all gone now.
In short whatever good things she did , and there were
many , curing the Shipbuilding and Steel industies
Unless you class Euthenasia as a cure that is.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
> Keith Willshaw <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote
>
> > The Steel for the Bridges over the Tyne and the Sydney Harbor Bridge
> > were all produced from the same rollling mills and are still
> > good so I would suggest the initial preparation and painting
> > were more likely to be the problem
> >
> > I would also point out that the ships were worked VERY hard
> > in WW2 and that some ships of that vintage, such as HMS Belfast
> > are still very much extant.
>
> vendor supplied the steel to make the first of the new Canadian frigates
> using the latest shipbuilding techniques from the States, the steel was
> rejected by the navy QA people as it was too rough-surfaced and it rusted
> while awaiting assembly lying there in the yard. It seems there are
"new"
> ways to make steel that it comes out real smooth and this stuff didn't cut
> it. The ship was further delayed while the contractors tried to weasel
> out of it and use the stuff anyway ISTR, but eventually the steel vendor
> had to go learn how to do it right and the yard got proper steel in the
> end.
>
> So it could be the WW2 steel was ok or was too rough but was not handled
> right to compensate for what kind it was . If it was rusting and they
> just slapped some red lead on it and launched the new ship that wouldn't
> make for a long life either.
>
The surface finish is more a factor of the rolling of the steel than
its production in ingot form. I suspect that in war time with
production being paramount there was a tendency to
use fewer passes and accept a lower quality surface finish
> Ore quality is interesting as a factor. How about coal? ISTR that Welsh
> coal was the type needed for ship's use (heat per amount?) and other coals
> were unacceptable with everything in between. (when they discovered coal
> on Vancouver's Island that was as good as Welsh coal it helped the
> British decide to keep the place)
>
The quality of the ore was a significant factor but so is the process
used. The main process used for low to medium quality at
the time was the Bessemer process. This could use low
grade ores and produce steel cheaply than the Open Hearth
furnace which was a slower but more controllable process.
> Would steel makers in wartime Britain have trouble getting good coal and
> would that matter for making coke or heating the furnace or whatever they
> do that would affect the quality of the steel?
>
Well coal isn't directly used in the Smelting process. Its first turned
to Coke and the coke is charged along with the Ore and Limestone
into the Blastfurnace
High suplhur coal could be a problem but nothing like the
problem it would prove to be for steam raising. I don't
believe coal would be a problem but the high phosphorus
content in the Cleveland Ironstone certainly could be
since this can result in embrittlement problems at low
temperature. See Titanic - sinking of
I suspect at least as important would be the disappearance
of the experienced steel workers into the services.
Pre-war steel production was as much an art as a
science. The old iron masters could judge the composition
of the melt by its color and the way it sparkled when poured
and there wasnt much done in the way of chemical
sampling , which was much too slow in those days
to bemuch practical use.
The Government tried to keep the work force in place by
classifying the jobs as reserved (from the draft) and
even instructing recruiters not to take volunteers
from the reserved occupations.
This didnt work too well since people like my father
just quit and went back to the recruiting office
the next day (Sept 5 1939 in his case)
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Keith Willshaw" <keith_w...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:8sq32h$p72$1...@sshuraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
>
> >
>
>
> It's all gone now.
>
> In short whatever good things she did , and there were
> many , curing the Shipbuilding and Steel industies
>
> Unless you class Euthenasia as a cure that is.
>
> Keith
>
Aggh - Garbage Correction Follows
In short whatever good things she did , and there were
many , curing the Shipbuilding and Steel industies
was not one of Margaret Thatcher's accomplishments
Mike Maxwell
what was the German steel production like in WW II? Did it affect the life
(literally!) of their U-boats? Or was that kind of info lost with the end
of the war?
FWIW, the U-505 is in Chicago. I suppose someone could run metallurgical
tests on it today.
--
Mike Maxwell
Mike_M...@sil.org
Andrew Toppan
>AOR's and AOE's (not sure about the AOE6 Class) had a belt of armor. I
>recall hearing 8 inches but that seems a bit high. Not all the way
>around but it did cover a decent amount of the hull.
According to what source?
These would be the first significantly armored auxiliaries since the late
1930's programs.
Joseph M Guthrie
I love that rumble when the arc is struck. My time on the melt shop floor is
unforgettable.
Bill Rhodes
wrote:
You want to play sailor all night, you have to play sailor all
day...Turn to!
<<<)))NAVCLITS is actively seeking other nominations.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Lake) wrote:
> Ore quality is interesting as a factor. How about coal? ISTR that
> Welsh
> coal was the type needed for ship's use (heat per amount?)
Coal firing was not used in major warships. From memory it was confined
to trawlers and small mine sweepers. However you are correct about the
higher thermal content of Welsh coal. After the war the new British Rail
had a lot of problems using ex Great Western locos as these had been
designed for Welsh coal and had relatively smaller fire boxes than locos
from other companies.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion