Using rubber bladders to transport oil/gas to England

[Malcom Mal Reynolds]

If this had been used, it would have freed up freighters to carry more
or other cargo while towing one or more bladders. Submarines would have
found it hard to destroy them and if the towing ship was sunk, they
might be able to cut the bladders loose for other ships to tow

[Jim H.]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Malcom Mal Reynolds]

Post by Jim H.

Post by Malcom Mal Reynolds
If this had been used, it would have freed up freighters to carry more
or other cargo while towing one or more bladders. Submarines would have
found it hard to destroy them and if the towing ship was sunk, they
might be able to cut the bladders loose for other ships to tow

Not a bad idea, but remember that rubber was in short supply.
It would have taken tons of it to create even one bladder
durable enough to make it across with enough petroleum to make it
worthwhile. I can't even begin to imagine what it would have taken
to attach tow lines or chains to it. Maybe a huge chain net to
enclose it? Thick rubber & massive grommets in the front corners?
Remember that the Atlantic has storms strong enough to
fail welds on Libertys & LST's. I dated a girl in the early 70's
whose Dad had started across from the US on three LST's as
navigator. One had both main engines fail and ended up
aground on the Azores. One cracked clean around the hull right
at the fore end of the superstructure. Despite the
efforts of the crew (welding plates over the cracks, chaining
the bitts together fore & aft of the crack, etc), it eventually
broke up and sank. Of course, this was in the early days of
maritime electric welding. 3rd trip was the charm.
I also have no idea of what interactions with petroleum might do
to rubber. Maybe nothing?
Jim H.

Seems to me that the amount of rubber needed would replace an equal
amount of steel while providing a transport with low visibility. As to
the effects of petroleum and rubber, isn't that how self-sealing tanks
were made?

[John Dallman]

Post by Malcom Mal Reynolds
Seems to me that the amount of rubber needed would replace an equal
amount of steel while providing a transport with low visibility.

Steel was much more available than rubber. Low visibility of a tanker
isn't actually that important when they are collected into convoys: a
U-boat that is in sighting range of a convoy is unlikely to miss it
because some tankers have been replaced by dracone barges. And towing a
large barge, made of steel or rubber, will slow the ship doing it, making
it harder for it to hold its place in the convoy.

Also, dracone barges don't seem to have been invented until 1956.

John

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Post by Jim H.
whose Dad had started across from the US on three LST's as
navigator. One had both main engines fail and ended up
aground on the Azores.

That sounds like the initial deployment and it was the
Bahamas that ended up with a significant amphibious
shipping capability, the Azores were not open to the
allies until later.

Post by Jim H.
One cracked clean around the hull right
at the fore end of the superstructure. Despite the
efforts of the crew (welding plates over the cracks, chaining
the bitts together fore & aft of the crack, etc), it eventually
broke up and sank.

Presumably,

LST-228, on 19 January 1944, she was grounded in the
vicinity of Bahia Angra Island, Azores, and was declared
beyond salvage and pronounced a total loss on 21 January
1944. LST-229 was struck from the Navy list on 12
February 1944.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Malcom Mal Reynolds
If this had been used, it would have freed up freighters to carry more
or other cargo while towing one or more bladders. Submarines would have
found it hard to destroy them and if the towing ship was sunk, they
might be able to cut the bladders loose for other ships to tow

The Allies had restricted supplies of rubber once the Japanese entered
the war, so I suspect they had higher priorities for what they did have.
Also towing is not necessarily that easy or safe even when towing
another ship. I have no idea what kind of hydrodynamics a big rubber
bag full of oil or fuel are like but I suspect not good.

Finally, that's what tankers were for, not cargo ships. ;)

[Malcom Mal Reynolds]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Malcom Mal Reynolds
If this had been used, it would have freed up freighters to carry more
or other cargo while towing one or more bladders. Submarines would have
found it hard to destroy them and if the towing ship was sunk, they
might be able to cut the bladders loose for other ships to tow

The Allies had restricted supplies of rubber once the Japanese entered
the war, so I suspect they had higher priorities for what they did have.
Also towing is not necessarily that easy or safe even when towing
another ship. I have no idea what kind of hydrodynamics a big rubber
bag full of oil or fuel are like but I suspect not good.
Finally, that's what tankers were for, not cargo ships. ;)

but cargo ships are more versatile than tankers and could tow the
bladders. I suppose if it would make it easier, the bladders could be
replaced with steel tanks that are hydrodynamic

[Mario]

Post by Malcom Mal Reynolds

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Malcom Mal Reynolds
If this had been used, it would have freed up freighters
to carry more or other cargo while towing one or more
bladders. Submarines would have found it hard to destroy
them and if the towing ship was sunk, they might be able
to cut the bladders loose for other ships to tow

The Allies had restricted supplies of rubber once the
Japanese entered the war, so I suspect they had higher
priorities for what they did have.
Also towing is not necessarily that easy or safe even when
towing
another ship. I have no idea what kind of hydrodynamics a
big rubber bag full of oil or fuel are like but I suspect
not good.
Finally, that's what tankers were for, not cargo ships. ;)

but cargo ships are more versatile than tankers and could tow
the bladders. I suppose if it would make it easier, the
bladders could be replaced with steel tanks that are
hydrodynamic

A big "torpedo" would have good hydrodynamic when at depth.

Surface waves are the big drag for ships.

Modern submarines are quite fast at cruise depth.

So maybe they could make a "submarine tanker" with no crew
towed by fast ships like destroyers.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Post by Malcom Mal Reynolds
If this had been used, it would have freed up freighters to carry more
or other cargo while towing one or more bladders. Submarines would have
found it hard to destroy them and if the towing ship was sunk, they
might be able to cut the bladders loose for other ships to tow

Freighters rarely carried bulk fuel.

The US built quite a number of barges and some were towed
across the Atlantic, the problem with towing is magnified when
you are in a convoy. Then add the speed penalty.

While the idea of cutting tow lines when a ship is hit seems
logical enough usually the crew involved has more important
things to worry about. A number of landing craft (and some
PT boats?) went down with their cargo ship despite being
deck cargo and so in theory "easy" to cut loose.

The engineering problems of creating a hydrodynamic enough
largely rubber structure strong enough to survive repeated
ocean voyages are a major problem.

Finally the allies were very short of rubber, probably more so
than tankers.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Anthony Buckland]

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair

Post by Malcom Mal Reynolds
If this had been used, it would have freed up freighters to carry more
or other cargo while towing one or more bladders. Submarines would have
found it hard to destroy them and if the towing ship was sunk, they
might be able to cut the bladders loose for other ships to tow

Freighters rarely carried bulk fuel.
The US built quite a number of barges and some were towed
across the Atlantic, the problem with towing is magnified when
you are in a convoy. Then add the speed penalty.
While the idea of cutting tow lines when a ship is hit seems
logical enough usually the crew involved has more important
things to worry about. A number of landing craft (and some
PT boats?) went down with their cargo ship despite being
deck cargo and so in theory "easy" to cut loose.
The engineering problems of creating a hydrodynamic enough
largely rubber structure strong enough to survive repeated
ocean voyages are a major problem.
Finally the allies were very short of rubber, probably more so
than tankers.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

I came to Canada in 1948 on a big liner (Aquitania)
in March, in that fearful weather termed
"Winter North Atlantic." The Battle of the
Atlantic was fought largely in such weather.
I shudder to think of trying to snag a loose
fuel bladder under those conditions. Or, for
that matter, towing it.

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by Malcom Mal Reynolds
If this had been used, it would have freed up freighters to carry more
or other cargo while towing one or more bladders. Submarines would have
found it hard to destroy them and if the towing ship was sunk, they
might be able to cut the bladders loose for other ships to tow

The one major natural resource that the Western Allies were short was
rubber. Malaya, lost to the Western Allies in 1942, was the major
source of the world's natural rubber in 1937. The Allies did have synthetic
rubber (Buna-S), but it was not as durable and rather more expensive to
make. The main reason that the US instituted gasoline rationing was not to
conserve gasoline (the US was the Saudi Arabia of the 1930's, producing 60%
of the world's supply and another 15% came from Mexico and Venezuela) but to
conserve rubber for tires. So in many ways it was easier and cheaper to
build a steel tanker than a rubber bladder, in terms of resources required
to get a gallon of oil to Liverpool.

Chris Manteuffel

[WJHopwood]

.....The main reason that the US instituted gasoline rationing was... to
.... conserve rubber for tires.....

True. However, gasoline rationing was only one factor in the urgent
conservation of rubber. Probably of equal dimension was the scrap
rubber drive which had actually been established before we were at
war, at a time when tensions were beginning to run high in anticipation.
of possible U.S. involvement.
Although there was a fairly healthy pre-war stockpile of natural
rubber on hand when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the immediate
demands of increased war production made ;the need for additional
rubber a vital necessity. Accordingly, along with gasoline rationing and
the collection of scrap rubber for recycling, a nationwide speed limit of
35 miles per hour was mandated and an increase in the production of
synthetic rubber.became a high priority.
The gravity of the rubber situation was such that FDR appointed a
commission of prominent civilians headed by Bernard Baruch to find
measures to further alleviate the rubber shortage. In its report, the
commission, wrote that it found "the existing situation to be as
dangerous that unless corrective steps are taken immediately this country
will face both military and civilian collapse."

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by c***@gmail.com
make. The main reason that the US instituted gasoline rationing was not to
conserve gasoline (the US was the Saudi Arabia of the 1930's, producing 60%
of the world's supply and another 15% came from Mexico and Venezuela) but to
conserve rubber for tires.

According to Feis, even before Pearl Harbor, the East Coast was facing oil
rationing, as the US was preparing for war (though in Europe.)

Mike