July 17, 2023
The Herreshoff Brothers and their Torpedo Boats, Part X
A series of papers on bringing innovation to the "New Navy"
Success
Torpedo Boats 6 & 7 | 1895-1897
by John Palmieri
See on-line THE HERRESHOFF CATALOGUE RAISONNÉ for detailed information on HMCo. # vessels including photos, half model images and descriptive documents
Figure 1 - USS PORTER (TB-6)
(Color-Tinted Postcard Early 1900s NH 101245-KN Navy History and Heritage Command)
Introduction
[1] citation
[1] Quotes from “Report of the Secretary of The Navy, William C. Whitney Dec. 1, 1886.” P.16. & “App. No. 3 Report of the Admiral of The Navy, David Dixon Porter. November 15, 1886.” P. 57. Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy with Accompanying Documents for the Year 1886. Washington GPO 1886.
The brothers change strategy by entering into an initially confidential agreement with the Secretary of the Navy to build faster vessels, free from Bureau oversight. They deliver superior vessels, but in the process risk any future constructive relationship with the Bureaus.
[5] John R. Spears, The History of our Navy; from its origins to the End of the War with Spain (1775 – 1898); Vol V War with Spain, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York 1902. Pg. 90. Also "Report of the Secretary of the Navy Dec. 6, 1887, William C. Whitney", Pgs. iii-iv.
[6] "The Building of Warships; Annual Report of Secretary Whitney; The Poor Results Attained by the New Cruisers (i.e., the ABC cruisers)- Broad Plans for Making the Navy Stronger", New York Times, Dec. 4, 1886.
[7] Sir Edward J. Reed, M.P. (late Chief Constructor of the British Navy) & Edward Simpson RADM USN (Late President US Naval Advisory Board), Modern Ships of War. (Harper & Brothers, New York, 1888) Pgs. 167-8. Provides specifics on John Roach actions to provide domestic steel plating for the ABCD ships.
[8] The purchase of quality domestic steel would remain a major problem for about 15 more years. Paul E. Pedisich, Congress Buys a Navy, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis MD. 2016. Pg. 62.
The Series will end with two more segments.
[5] John R. Spears, The History of our Navy; from its origins to the End of the War with Spain (1775 – 1898); Vol V War with Spain, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York 1902. Pg. 90. Also "Report of the Secretary of the Navy Dec. 6, 1887, William C. Whitney", Pgs. iii-iv.
[6] "The Building of Warships; Annual Report of Secretary Whitney; The Poor Results Attained by the New Cruisers (i.e., the ABC cruisers)- Broad Plans for Making the Navy Stronger", New York Times, Dec. 4, 1886.
[7] Sir Edward J. Reed, M.P. (late Chief Constructor of the British Navy) & Edward Simpson RADM USN (Late President US Naval Advisory Board), Modern Ships of War. (Harper & Brothers, New York, 1888) Pgs. 167-8. Provides specifics on John Roach actions to provide domestic steel plating for the ABCD ships.
[8] The purchase of quality domestic steel would remain a major problem for about 15 more years. Paul E. Pedisich, Congress Buys a Navy, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis MD. 2016. Pg. 62.
● Part XI detailing the disastrous failure of Herreshoff to win a contract for a 30-knot TB. The success of TBs 14, 15 & 16; models of economy of construction and operation, followed by Herreshoff bidding failure and departure from the torpedo boat business.
● A Postscript addressing Capt. Nat’s brief reengagement with his US Navy torpedo boat supporters to provide the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt an improved class of destroyers.
Contracting for TBs 6, 7 & 8
[4] Thomas Wildenberg and Norman Polmar. Ship Killers: A History of the American Torpedo. (Annapolis, MD, USNI Press, 2010) pgs. 16-17.
Congress Authorizes Construction
[4] Thomas Wildenberg and Norman Polmar. Ship Killers: A History of the American Torpedo. (Annapolis, MD, USNI Press, 2010) pgs. 16-17.
On March 2, 1895, Congress approves construction of three torpedo boats at a unit cost not to exceed $175,000. Subtracting US Navy costs for superintending construction, preparing plans and specifications, procuring and installing Government furnished armament, the bid price is expected near $150,000. Congress restricts construction to one contractor each, on the Pacific Coast, the Mississippi River, and the Gulf of Mexico, unless the bids show they cannot be built at a fair cost, in which case the decision is left to the Secretary of the Navy.[1]
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.
We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more
US Navy Procurement Plan
[4] Thomas Wildenberg and Norman Polmar. Ship Killers: A History of the American Torpedo. (Annapolis, MD, USNI Press, 2010) pgs. 16-17.
Navy to Have Three Sea-Going Torpedo Boats
"With the Almost Incredible Speed of 26 Knots"
[1] citation
[1] Quotes from “Report of the Secretary of The Navy, William C. Whitney Dec. 1, 1886.” P.16. & “App. No. 3 Report of the Admiral of The Navy, David Dixon Porter. November 15, 1886.” P. 57. Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy with Accompanying Documents for the Year 1886. Washington GPO 1886.
This is the lead sentence of the New York Times headline article of June 16, 1895, following release of the US Navy Department (Bureaus) plans and specifications. “Incredible” it is not!
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.
We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more
1. Beginning in early 1893 the British Admiralty started construction of 42 torpedo destroyers (TBDs) from different builders with differing boiler and engine designs. The first HAVOCK 180 ft LWL, 250 tons, 5000 ihp bult by Yarrow and equipped with locomotive style boilers, in trials bettered 26 knots. HORNET, a follow Yarrow TBD, but equipped with tubulous boilers, achieved 27.628 knots, and 27 knots becomes the speed objective for the program. At the same time a Normand built a 144 ft. French torpedo boat equipped with Du Temple type tubulous boilers also beat 27 knots in trials.[2]
2. It is a disappointment for Secretary Herbert. In April he had directed Chief BuC&R Hichborn to prepare plans for a torpedo boat of 180 tons, speed 27 knots.[3] Previous reports confirmed the Department at work to achieve 27 knots, planning for a vessel of 3500 horsepower, with three boilers, larger engines and increased coal bunker capacity. [4]
Through the summer there are numerous contacts between the Navy and potential bidders for the three torpedo boats. BuC&R inquires on the intentions of specific Pacific, Mississippi River, and Gulf of Mexico shipbuilders. Secretary Herbert makes clear his plan to appoint boards to investigate the yards ability to build the torpedo boats. Likewise, there are many Navy visits to the HMCo (often riding in HMCo-built torpedo boats STILETTO and CUSHING) where the Herreshoff brothers can make their case. Some are attracted by the new composite hull (aluminum, bronze, and steel) America’s Cup DEFENDER (HMCo 452). In early June the Chief BuOrd Commodore Sampson accompanied by CDR Converse in STILETTO, in late June the officers of the Naval War College transported in CUSHING and STILETTO, in July Naval Constructor Hobson to inspect DEFENDER, and in August, about one month before bid opening, Secretary Herbert accompanied by Sampson and Converse witness torpedo shoots by CUSHING and STILETTO. News account of the latter explicitly record Herreshoff’s case - Herreshoff will do for the Secretary what his Bureaus will not do; deliver a torpedo boat guaranteed to attain 27.5 knots. [5] [6] [7]
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.
We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more
And finally, to be sure there is no doubt regarding the Herreshoff offer, naval aide to the Secretary of the Navy, Benjamin Butler, at the request of Sampson, directs Converse to “find out if the two brothers are agreed on this proposition”, as he suggests they do not always agree.[8]
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.
We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more
The Bids and Bid Evaluation
[4] Thomas Wildenberg and Norman Polmar. Ship Killers: A History of the American Torpedo. (Annapolis, MD, USNI Press, 2010) pgs. 16-17.
(Bids see Table 1)
Bidder | Class 1 Bureau Plans & Specs | Class 2 Contractor Plans & Specs | Trial Speed Guaranteed for two hours |
|---|---|---|---|
Union Iron Works | San Francisco, CA
| 1 @ $175,000 2 f@ $173,000 each 3 f@ $172,000 each | 26 knots | |
Wolff & Zwicker Iron Works | Portland, OR | 1 @ $168,700 |
| 26 knots |
Moran Brothers | Seattle, WA | 1 @ $163,350 | 26 knots | |
Herreshoff Mfg. Co. | Bristol, RI |
| 1 @ $144,000 2 @ $144,000 each 3 @ $144,000 each | 27.5 knots (Signed contract includes $10K speed penalty if only reach 26.5 knots.) |
Table 1: Bids TBs 6, 7 & 8 Opened September 10, 1895 [9][10]
Chief Naval Constructor Hichborn and Engineer-in-Chief Melville are assigned by the Secretary to assess the bids. Their two-part 17-page report “Memorandum of objections to Herreshoff plans for Gunboats Nos. 6, 7, and 8”[11] , Hull written by BuC&R and Machinery by BuSteam, cites differences from the Bureau Class 1 plans; detailed objections, some of which are negotiated with John Brown Herreshoff in Wash. DC; and ends with conclusions and one recommendation.
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.
We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more
● Hull- Notes elimination of the forecastle deck, a bad arrangement of the boilers relative to the adjacent coal bunkers, a general slight reduction of scantlings, elimination of all galvanizing. It concludes many of the changes, “are in the line of cheapening the cost of the boat so that while the price of the bid is considerably lower than the lowest bid under Class 1, much of the difference is due to the fact that the Herreshoff boat is essentially a cheaper boat to construct.”
● Machinery- Objects to the proposed boilers, recommending a return to the Thornycroft used in CUSHING. (Herreshoff apparently, in the effort to reduce weight, proposes an improved square water level boiler.[12]) Cites opposition to the design of various components, objects to “fitting practices as cheap and unsatisfactory”, and notes further deficiencies in the boiler/ fire room arrangements. BuSteam emphasizes, “The contractor must understand that all of his designs for machinery must be submitted to and approved by the Bureau of Steam Engineering.”
● Conclusions
[2] William duBarry Thomas. “The Genesis of a Professional Society”. SNAME Transactions. Vol.101, 1993, pgs.31-9.
1. The guaranteed speed 27.5 knots is obtained at a lighter displacement than that in the Type 1 Department plans and specifications. Herreshoff makes 27.5 knots at 164 tons displacement as against 26 knots at 182 tons displacement required by Department plans. The Department requirements (they estimate) are equivalent to 27 knots at 164 tons- so Herreshoff promises only a net increase of 0.5 knots.
2. "We are of the opinion the plans submitted by HMCo provide for a boat inferior in general and of a cheaper and less durable character than the boat designed by the Department. It is believed however, that with a satisfactory boiler, and the minor changes hereinbefore recommended, the boats proposed by HMCo will be efficient and useful."
● Recommendation - HMCo build two boats under Class 2. Moran Brothers build one under Class 1.
[2] William duBarry Thomas. “The Genesis of a Professional Society”. SNAME Transactions. Vol.101, 1993, pgs.31-9.
● Comments on the Conclusions and Recommendation
[2] William duBarry Thomas. “The Genesis of a Professional Society”. SNAME Transactions. Vol.101, 1993, pgs.31-9.
1. BuC&R and BuSteam use of the pejorative words “cheapening”, “cheaper” and “cheap” intentionally characterize the work as being of lesser quality. No credit is offered for Herreshoff’s demonstrated ability to engineer lower weight steam vessel hulls and machinery.
2. BuSteam comments (highlighted in bold) warn, even threaten, Herreshoff, with continuing, multiple design approval fights for the duration of the contract.
3. Because of Herreshoff’s low price, the Herreshoff / Moran combination is the only option fitting within the $450,000 available from the Congressional authorization and provides the Secretary the rationale to make the award to an East Coast shipbuilder.
Contract Award and the Special Arrangement
[4] Thomas Wildenberg and Norman Polmar. Ship Killers: A History of the American Torpedo. (Annapolis, MD, USNI Press, 2010) pgs. 16-17.
Figure 2 - Converse in 1898 on board cruiser MONTGOMERY after transfer from OIC Torpedo Station Newport in July 1897 (US Navy History and Heritage Command Photo NH 72722)
On Sept. 27, 1895, CDR Converse advises Capt. Nat in a letter marked “CONFIDENTIAL” the Secretary has awarded HMCo the contract for two torpedo boats, and that “many of the restrictions imposed, contemplated by the original proposals, have been removed… based solely on the remarkably good record made by CUSHING”. See Figure 3 for the complete letter. (Click the images to view larger)
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.
We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more
Figure 3 - CDR George Converse Sept. 27, 1895 “CONFIDENTIAL” letter to Capt. Nat
(Source NGH Correspondence Files Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection, Herreshoff Marine Museum)
On Oct. 17 Converse, in his second year as Officer-in-Charge of the Newport Torpedo Station, is assigned additional duty as the “General Inspector” of the torpedo boats to be built at HMCo and Lieut. Spencer S. Wood (later first commanding officer of TB-6) is assigned to HMCo as Converse’s assistant. [13]
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.
We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more
[4] All quotes are from "Report of the Admiral of the Navy to the Secretary of the Navy 1886", Appendix 3 to Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy with Accompanying Documents for the Year 1886. Washington GPO 1886. Pages 54-69.
It takes one month for the press to expose the “CONFIDENTIAL” arrangement. In a Wash DC dispatch titled, "Building The Torpedo Boats. The Herreshoff's Think They Can Do Better Without Naval Inspectors" the Bristol Phoenix reports on October 25th, following a request by the Herreshoffs, the Secretary has, for possibly the first time in a contract of this magnitude, removed the on-site inspection by a Steam Engineer and a Naval Constructor. Naval Constructors and Steam Engineers are greatly disturbed by this event. [14]
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.
We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more
True Feelings of the Bureaus
Chief BuC&R Hichborn may have recommended Herreshoff build two of the torpedo boats, but possibly that is not his true feelings. It is more likely he is forced to that position by the funding reality noted in para #3 of “Comments on the Conclusions and Recommendation”. In his 1895 annual report Hichborn writes, one boat was “awarded” to Moran and the other two were “given” to Herreshoff. [15] “Given” implies the Herreshoff contract was obtained through arbitrary executive action of the Secretary and not through the Navy competitive bidding process with full participation of the Bureaus in the contract decision.
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.
We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more
[4] All quotes are from "Report of the Admiral of the Navy to the Secretary of the Navy 1886", Appendix 3 to Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy with Accompanying Documents for the Year 1886. Washington GPO 1886. Pages 54-69.
Whatever the feelings of the Bureaus the two Herreshoff boats are built because the Bureau design fails on two counts.
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.
We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more
1. The Bureau design is too expensive to build.
2. The Bureau design does not meet the speed desired by the Secretary.
George Converse — A Different Kind of Inspector is Now "In Charge of That Business"
[4] Thomas Wildenberg and Norman Polmar. Ship Killers: A History of the American Torpedo. (Annapolis, MD, USNI Press, 2010) pgs. 16-17.
Converse goes right to work. On October 19 he travels to HMCo in CUSHING to begin his new assignment. [16] He has been working with Herreshoff torpedo boat designs since 1875, from model testing through underway trials - LIGHTNING, STILETTO and CUSHING. The TB 6 & 7 contract drawings are general in character and the Navy inspector is required to approve each detail drawing before material is inspected or the work is commenced. In carrying out these duties Converse does not wait for HMCo to submit the finished drawing for approval. Rather he views the drawings in the drafting room, while in preparation, and where he can discuss their merits and suggestions for improvement thereby taking “full advantage of the experience and genius of the designer (Capt. Nat) whose phenomenal success in the production of nearly 200 high speed steam vessels has attracted universal attention.” [17]
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.
We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more
[4] All quotes are from "Report of the Admiral of the Navy to the Secretary of the Navy 1886", Appendix 3 to Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy with Accompanying Documents for the Year 1886. Washington GPO 1886. Pages 54-69.
As the contract progresses there is continuing friction with the two Bureaus to the extent that Secretary Herbert informs Converse, via an unprecedented letter signed by his naval aide, (Figure 4) that he is “in charge of that business”, to cease communications with the Bureaus, and if advice from the Bureaus is needed, the Secretary will “ask for them.” Then to make clear to the Department his confidence in Converse and to forestall any reprisals by Bureaus against him, he takes the unusual step of recognizing him in the 1896 Annual Report as one “whose remarkable knowledge of his specialties and business capacity has enabled him to render invaluable service to the Dept.” [18]
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.
We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more
Navy Department
Office of the Secretary
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.
We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more
Feb. 7th, 1896
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.
We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more
My Dear Converse-
[5] There are various terms used to describe boilers in this paper. There are two primary types
1. Fire tube including Scotch type, cylindrical, and locomotive in which hot fire box gases pass though tubes to heat water in a cylindrical drum.
2. Water tube, including tubulous, coil, sectional, square, and three-drum in which water passing through the tubes is heated by hot gases in the firebox.
The Secretary is much pleased with the Armington & Sims letters & I will write to you further about that tomorrow- when I can again get their letters before him as he wishes me to do.
[5] There are various terms used to describe boilers in this paper. There are two primary types
1. Fire tube including Scotch type, cylindrical, and locomotive in which hot fire box gases pass though tubes to heat water in a cylindrical drum.
2. Water tube, including tubulous, coil, sectional, square, and three-drum in which water passing through the tubes is heated by hot gases in the firebox.
He wants me to tell you that he wants all the correspondence concerning the Torpedo Boats building at Bristol to be addressed to him. In other words he does not want you to be writing to the Bureaus or the Steel Board about details which require their attention. He has placed you in charge of that business- and you can make your own recommendations to him & he says if he wants the advice of the Bureaus’ he will ask for them.
[5] There are various terms used to describe boilers in this paper. There are two primary types
1. Fire tube including Scotch type, cylindrical, and locomotive in which hot fire box gases pass though tubes to heat water in a cylindrical drum.
2. Water tube, including tubulous, coil, sectional, square, and three-drum in which water passing through the tubes is heated by hot gases in the firebox.
You can imagine that you are not regarded by the Bureaus concerned in the same light the Secretary regards you & how every chance they get they raise some quibble- Every question asked them starts a new argument etc. Anything that you want to get straight to the Secretary send under cover to me or if unofficial send me a private note & I’ll read it to him.
[5] There are various terms used to describe boilers in this paper. There are two primary types
1. Fire tube including Scotch type, cylindrical, and locomotive in which hot fire box gases pass though tubes to heat water in a cylindrical drum.
2. Water tube, including tubulous, coil, sectional, square, and three-drum in which water passing through the tubes is heated by hot gases in the firebox.
I know that he desires that you are not to be hinderedin your job.
[5] There are various terms used to describe boilers in this paper. There are two primary types
1. Fire tube including Scotch type, cylindrical, and locomotive in which hot fire box gases pass though tubes to heat water in a cylindrical drum.
2. Water tube, including tubulous, coil, sectional, square, and three-drum in which water passing through the tubes is heated by hot gases in the firebox.
Very Sincerely Yours,
[5] There are various terms used to describe boilers in this paper. There are two primary types
1. Fire tube including Scotch type, cylindrical, and locomotive in which hot fire box gases pass though tubes to heat water in a cylindrical drum.
2. Water tube, including tubulous, coil, sectional, square, and three-drum in which water passing through the tubes is heated by hot gases in the firebox.
(Signed) Benjamin Buckingham
[5] There are various terms used to describe boilers in this paper. There are two primary types
1. Fire tube including Scotch type, cylindrical, and locomotive in which hot fire box gases pass though tubes to heat water in a cylindrical drum.
2. Water tube, including tubulous, coil, sectional, square, and three-drum in which water passing through the tubes is heated by hot gases in the firebox.
Figure 4 - Transcript of handwritten letter to CDR George A. Converse US Navy General Inspector TB 6 & 7 building at the HMCo.
Arranged into paragraphs for clarity.[19] [20]
There is no further involvement of BuSteam and BuC&R in TBs 6 & 7. They receive no progress reports, no drawings, nothing until a representative of each participates in the acceptance trials of PORTER (TB-6) in Feb. 1897. In Nov. 1895 Chief Constructor Philip Hichborn issues one of a series of annual reports on recent vessel designs for the U.S. Navy. The Bureaus design of TB-8 is featured, (Figure 5A & Figure 5B). Herreshoff TBs 6 &7 are not mentioned as he lacks detail information on their design. (Click the images below to view them larger.)
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.
We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more
TBs 6 & 7 — A Profit or Loss for Herreshoff
[4] Thomas Wildenberg and Norman Polmar. Ship Killers: A History of the American Torpedo. (Annapolis, MD, USNI Press, 2010) pgs. 16-17.
L. Francis Herreshoff writes that he believes the boats cost more to build than their contract price, but because of the bonus offered for exceeding contract speed, Herreshoff made “a reasonably good profit.”[21] He is incorrect about the bonus. The Navy stopped offering a bonus for exceeding contract speed with contract award for TBs 3, 4, & 5 in 1894.[22] The answer should be in the HMCo financial records, but they do not survive. Another indicator is Capt. Nat’s annual income as recorded in his diary. They show no financial distress; his income (HMCo salary, HMCo dividends as partner, America’s Cup Syndicate bonuses, plus miscellaneous) triples from 1895 to 1898- starting at $8450 and jumping to $25,000, with the big increase occurring in HMCo dividends. [23]
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.
We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more
[4] All quotes are from "Report of the Admiral of the Navy to the Secretary of the Navy 1886", Appendix 3 to Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy with Accompanying Documents for the Year 1886. Washington GPO 1886. Pages 54-69.
In Jan. 1896, John Brown Herreshoff writes to Converse, “General Inspector TBs 6 & 7” committing HMCo to sharing the extra cost of “changes proposed in the plans” of the vessels if the Navy cannot obtain the funds from Congress.[24] The “improvements” are not identified until it is all revealed in May 1897 in the fight over the preliminary acceptance trial of PORTER (TB-6). HMCo is seeking an additional $22,000.[25]
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.
We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more
1. $13,000 for the change to the Normand boiler
2. $2250 for shafting
3. $1900 for the main engines
4. $4000 for the Navy directed change in the engine guides
Figure 6 - Capt. Nat’s undated cost estimate for TBs.
We have found no evidence that the claims are paid. John’s letter and other evidence of his trips to see the Secretary or Assistant Secretary Theodore Roosevelt, confirm, that while attempting full cost recovery, they progress on the contract holding back nothing in design and manufacture to beat the performance requirements.
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.
We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more
[4] All quotes are from "Report of the Admiral of the Navy to the Secretary of the Navy 1886", Appendix 3 to Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy with Accompanying Documents for the Year 1886. Washington GPO 1886. Pages 54-69.
There is another data point; an undated penciled cost estimate in Capt. Nat’s handwriting (Figure 6) for the following torpedo boats;[26]
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.
We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more
● TBs 6 & 7 @ 159 tons
● TBs 9, 10 & 11 @ 203.7 tons (30 knot TBs for which HMCo submitted a losing bid)
● 22-1/2 knot TB @ 90 tons [MORRIS (TB 14)]
● 20 knot TB [@ 38 tons TALBOT (TB 15) & GWIN (TB 16)]
[2] William duBarry Thomas. “The Genesis of a Professional Society”. SNAME Transactions. Vol.101, 1993, pgs.31-9.
Costs are derived by multiplying the major components of ship weight (Hull & Fittings; Machinery; & Equipment) by a factor of cost/ton. Since the 22-1/2 and 20 knot TBs are not identified by hull number, he prepared these estimates between submission of the bids in August 1896 and before contract award with ship numbers assigned in October 1896.
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.
We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more
Torpedo Boat | HMCo Bid Price Per Boat [27]
| HMCo Contract Price per boat [28]
| Copt. Nat Cost Estimate Per Boat from Figure 5
|
|---|---|---|---|
6 & 7 | $144,000 | $144,000 | $159,000 |
30 kt, 9, 10 & 11 | 1 boat- $218,000 2 boats-$209,000 3 boats- $206,000 | No award to HMCo | $205,700 |
22.5 knot TB 14 | 1 boat- $84,000 | $85,000 | $87,500 |
20 knot TBs 15 & 16 | 1 boat- $40,000 2 boats- $37,500 | Two boats at $39,000 each | $38,300 |
Table 2 - HMCo Comparison- Bid Price vs Contract Price vs Capt. Nat’s Estimate
For TBs 6 & 7 there is a 10% difference between the contract price and Capt. Nat’s estimate whereas for TBs 14, 15 & 16 there is little difference between the two numbers. The inference is that HMCo may have under bid TBs 6 & 7 as the price of getting back into the torpedo boat business after two straight losses, TB-2, & TBs 3, 4 & 5.
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.
We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more
For additional information on torpedo boat pricing during the years HMCo competed, see Appendix A, “A Comparison of Contract Prices of Torpedo Boats 1-18 Awarded Mar. 1888- Oct. 1896.”
[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.