New member Mk1 LCT research

Discussion in 'The War at Sea' started by Glen C, Dec 29, 2013.

  1. Glen C

    Glen C Member

    Hi folks,

    I'm Glen and completely new to forums of any kind so apologies if I get this wrong - your guidance would be appreciated!

    I'm particularly interested in shipbuilding as my paternal grandfather worked at Hawthorn Leslie's of Hebburn and built, amongst other's, the prototype LCT Mark 1 so this is my primary interest. He was also seconded to the dockyard at Gibralter which I'd like to find out more about too.

    I've spent some time researching various LCT sources (inc. Wikipedia, uboat.net, Historic Military Vehicles Forum etc) and compiling LCT lists from several sources.

    Any help/advice/pointers gratefully received.

    Thanks,

    Glen
     
  2. CL1

    CL1 116th LAA and 92nd (Loyals) LAA,Royal Artillery

    Welcome to the Forum Glen

    regards
    Clive
     
  3. PsyWar.Org

    PsyWar.Org Archive monkey

    Glen, a warm welcome to the forum.

    Best wishes,

    Lee
     
  4. ritsonvaljos

    ritsonvaljos Senior Member

    Welcome, Glen.
     
  5. Roy Martin

    Roy Martin Senior Member

    Hello Glen,

    There is a little bit about the Mk.1 LCTs, and several photographs, in a book by Yves Buffetaut; if you can't get a look at a copy I will copy the bits for you?

    Roy
     
  6. Gage

    Gage The Battle of Barking Creek

    Hello and welcome.
     
  7. Ron Goldstein

    Ron Goldstein WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Hi Glen

    As a one time passenger in one of your grand-dad's LCTs

    Welcome aboard !

    Ron
     
  8. nicks

    nicks Very Senior Member

    Hi and welcome to the forum, Glen.
     
  9. Glen C

    Glen C Member

    Hi Roy, thanks for this. Is the book you refer to "D-Day Ships (Conway's naval history after 1850) by Yves Buffetaut and David Lyon (20 May 2004)"?

    Many thanks,

    Glen
     
  10. idler

    idler GeneralList

    Welcome, Glen.

    There are a few people interested in landing craft around here. Unfortunately the site search doesn't work for three letter strings so you have to come in via Google:

    WW2Talk LCT results

    Have a poke around...
     
  11. Glen C

    Glen C Member

    Hi Ron,
    Hope it didn't let you down as everything I've read so far about the Mk1 says that it was an 'interesting' craft to handle. Even its trial on the Tyne proved the rudder to be virtually useless so they had to rely on judicious use of throttles etc to control it. Pretty much explains why only 30 Mk1 were built and it seems the Mk2 was in design before they were even delivered.
    It would be great to hear what the experience was like as I've so far seen testimonials for only a few craft. I guess the post-Dunkirk 'little ships' were very much work-horses and generally get little attention.
    All the best,

    Glen
     
  12. Glen C

    Glen C Member

    Thanks very much for the pointers - loads to read and it looks like there's already a couple of people researching LCT Mk1 in particular. Many thanks, Glen
     
  13. Roy Martin

    Roy Martin Senior Member

    Hi Glen,

    The copy I have is D-Day Ships, The Allied Invasion Fleet June 1944 Yves Buffetaut.

    Did Hawthorn Leslie's do the original design work? I remember that the idea was that these craft could be built by engineering firms, mainly bridge builders, to take some of the strain off the ship builders.

    As far as I know all the LCTs were pigs to handle. We had three converted as salvage ships. With both props going the same way (righthanded I think,instead of outward turning) they were unpredictable to say the least. One of ours went into Thurso for shelter and hit almost all the moored fishing boats. After she sailed I got a message from the agent 'she did a good job, she managed to hit the ones that she missed on the way in'

    Roy
     
  14. Glen C

    Glen C Member

    Hi Roy, thanks for book title. I think I'll see if I can get a copy from Amazon / ebay.

    Sounds like the early LCTs were really bad to handle and the later ones just bad. The Americans had several flotillas which "island hopped" from Hawaii to forward positions. Given your experience I'd say that was pushing the limits of the design to the extreme!

    Regarding design etc. according to "The Tin Armada" by Basil Hearde "Taking the Prime Minister's mandate, Admiral Maund enlisted the skills of naval architect Robert Baker who in a matter of three days remarkably completed initial drawings for what would become a 152 foot landing craft with a 29 foot beam in a shallow draft. Ship builders Fairfield and John Brown agreed to work out details for the design under the guidance of the Admiralty experiment works at Halsar. Tank test with models soon determined the hydrostatic characteristics of the craft’s flat bottom hull, single rudder and blunt bow, indicating the craft could make 10 knots on engines delivering about 700hp with two twin propellers."

    Given that Fairfields and John Brown were both Clydeside shipbuilders it seems odd to me that the prototype was built on the Tyne at R&W Hawthorn Leslie, however, it does seem that they had an enviable reputation for high quality vessels from their small yard - they also built HMS Kelly (and repaired her several times) and other ships in the J and K destroyer classes amongst many others - so maybe the design development was led by Clydeside with prototype construction of this simple craft taking place on Tyneside. The other thing to note is that Hebburn was known as "little Aberdeen" as Andrew Leslie, who founded the yard, was a Shetlander who learned his skills in Aberdeen and moved to Tyneside to (successfully) make his fortune, In doing so he brought many of his countrymen with him as the yard developed, thus the link with Scottish shipbuilders was maintained and this is where my father's family came into the frame having worked in Dundee shipyards in the late 1800s and moving to Hebburn in about 1905.

    In any event, I also suppose it was a case of all hands to the pumps as Winston Churchill had specifically pressed Admiral Maund for an amphibious solution so those with capacity for a 'small' job on behalf of another yard stepped in.

    Later, when the Americans started building LCT (marks V and VI) they were building them in small yards and units including places like Manitowoc on Lake Michigan to avoid overloading larger yards where capacity was needed for larger vessels so this fits quite neatly with the idea that anyone used to working in steel fabrications could build large volumes of LCT quickly and cheaply.

    Best regards,

    Glen
     
  15. Smudger Jnr

    Smudger Jnr Our Man in Berlin

    Glen,

    Hello and welcome to the Forum.

    Good luck with your Research.

    Regards
    Tom
     
  16. Mike L

    Mike L Very Senior Member

    Hi Glen and welcome to WW2Talk.

    Don't know how I missed this yesterday - sounds like we might have a great deal to talk about.

    I and a colleague have been researching Mk1 LCTs for a few years now (since 2 wrecks were found and identified in Crete).
    We have copied literally thousands of pages from TNA and other sources eg Glasgow University and have copies of several original plans. We also have lists of where and by whom each of the 30 Mk1s were built.

    For your info 10 of the Mk1s stayed in Scotland for training purposes and the other 20 were shipped to Egypt in sections to be reassembled there. Of the 20 in the Middle East only 3 appear to have survived the war, the rest being lost on operations.
    We have found quite a few photos (initially proved very hard to find) and have pieced together the story of many of the vessels and a few first hand accounts of crew members.

    Incredibly we are in touch with the skipper of one of the Med LCTs who is 94 years old but still very much alive and kicking.

    One thing that has been puzzling is that we have found references to a Mk0 LCT but have not been able to find what this was exactly. I will send you my email address by PM.
    By the way there are a few errors in 'the Tin Armada' for example the Naval Architect was Rowland Baker (not Robert), later Sir Rowland, and the research establishment was the Admiralty Research Establishment at Haslar, Portsmouth (not Halsar). I have copies of some of the Haslar research from the time.

    Mike Long
     
  17. idler

    idler GeneralList

    LCT Mk0 might be the 'New X-Lighter' that was designed just before the war but never built. I think it's mentioned in Watery Maze insofar as the money budgeted for its construction was reallocated to ALC development. What was the context of the LCT Mk0 reference?
     
  18. Mike L

    Mike L Very Senior Member

    Idler,

    The refs to 'Mk0' LCT are from the attached list of LCT builders.
    Cannot remember the source offhand, will look through my records.

    Mention of 'new X-lighters' is interesting. I know a bit about the WW1 X lighters (beetles) and that RN was looking into new landing craft before WW2 but the impetus for 'longer range' Tank Landing Craft (ie independant of Landing Craft carrying ships) does not seem to be a priority until Churchill insisted on them being developed in June 1940. By December at least 12 vessels had been designed, constructed and were on their way to the Med.

    Of course Churchill was heavily involved with Gallipoli in WW1 where the original X-lighters were used and it seems a natural progression to resurrect the WW1 concept but with longer range.
    Another of Churchill's visions (like Mulberry) that made a major contribution to Allied success in WW2.
     

    Attached Files:

  19. idler

    idler GeneralList

    It's from Lenton & Colledge's Warships of World War II. As LCT(0) were built, they can't be 'New X Lighters'.

    Atkinson's Landing Craft from 1926 equivalent list substitutes LCT(1) for all the 0's.

    Assuming they are much the same thing, could it be that the LCT(0) were traditionally built, and not in sections? Will try to think where I might have read something on this aspect of development...
     
  20. idler

    idler GeneralList

    Got it:


    From The Design and Construction of British Warships 1939-1945: Amphibious Warfare Vessels & Auxiliaries by D K Brown.

    I suggest that LCT(0) were solid and LCT(1) were sectional.
     

Share This Page