Hubbry Logo
Emergency Shipbuilding ProgramEmergency Shipbuilding ProgramMain
Open search
Emergency Shipbuilding Program
Community hub
Emergency Shipbuilding Program
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Emergency Shipbuilding Program
Emergency Shipbuilding Program
Emergency Shipbuilding Program
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
U.S. Maritime Commission "Ships for Victory" emblem

The Emergency Shipbuilding Program (late 1940 – September 1945) was a United States government effort to quickly build simple cargo ships to carry troops and materiel to allies and foreign theatres during World War II. Run by the U.S. Maritime Commission, the program built almost 6,000 ships.[1][2][3]

Origins

[edit]

By the fall of 1940, the fleet of the British Merchant Navy (equivalent to the United States Merchant Marine) was being sunk in the Battle of the Atlantic by Germany's U-boats faster than the United Kingdom could replace them. Led by Sir Arthur Salter, a group of men called the British Merchant Shipping Mission came to North America from the UK to enlist U.S. and Canadian shipbuilders to construct merchant ships. As all existing U.S. shipyards capable of constructing ocean-going merchant ships were already occupied by either building ships for the U.S. Navy or for the U.S. Maritime Commission's Long Range Shipbuilding Program, which had begun three years previously to fulfill the goals set forth in the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, the mission negotiated with a consortium of companies made up of the existing U.S. ship repairer Todd Shipyards, which had its headquarters in New York City in league with the shipbuilder Bath Iron Works located in Bath, Maine.[4][5]

The new yard, called the Todd-Bath Iron Shipbuilding Corporation, was to be an entirely new facility located on a piece of mostly vacant land located adjacent to Cummings Point in South Portland, Maine, for the purpose of building 30 cargo ships. The mission, likewise, negotiated with a different consortium made up of Todd along with a group of heavy construction companies in the Western U.S. for the building of a new shipyard in the San Francisco Bay area for construction of 30 ships identical to those to be built in Maine.

That yard was to be called the Todd-California Shipbuilding Corp. It was slated to be built on the tide flats of Richmond on the east side of the bay. The construction companies that made up the second half of that corporation had no experience building ships, but did have an extensive resume with the construction of highways, bridges, and major public-works projects such as the Hoover Dam, the Bonneville Dam, and the massive Grand Coulee Dam. Known as the Six Companies, the members included two companies that were to become driving powers in wartime merchant shipbuilding during the ensuing years, and the men behind those companies were Henry J. Kaiser, who headed the Kaiser Companies, and John A. McCone,[6] who led the Bechtel/McCone Company.[3]

Contracts for both yards and the ships were signed on December 20, 1940. All the ships to be built were collectively called the Ocean class and to be of an existing British design for five-hatch cargo ships of about 10,000 tons' load displacement and 11 knots' service speed using obsolete, but readily available, triple-expansion, reciprocating steam engine and coal-fired Scotch-type fire tube boilers. The first of these vessels, the Ocean Vanguard, was launched at the Todd-California yard on October 15, 1941.[7][2]

The early years

[edit]

With the defense of both the U.S. and its overseas possessions, along with a very strong national interest in assisting Britain in its struggle to keep its supply lines open to both North America and its overseas colonies, President Franklin D. Roosevelt announced what was to become known as the Emergency Shipbuilding Program on January 3, 1941, for the construction of 200 ships very much similar to those being built for the British.[8] He designated that the program be implemented and administered by the Maritime Commission, which since 1937 had been the federal government department tasked with merchant marine development, and which had worked very closely with the British Mission in placing its 60-ship order. Immediately, the Commission authorized that the two yards building for the British build ships for the U.S. upon completion of their current contracts.[9]

The Maritime Commission also funded the yards to add building ways and realizing that more than two yards would be needed for the program they were expecting to enter into contracts to build new shipyards on the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific Coasts of the U.S. In this first wave of expansion, seven additional yards were added to those in Maine and California, and like those yards were to be for the sole purpose of building only the emergency type of ships. While all the yards were to be built by private contractors and operated by commercial shipbuilding companies, the new yards were financed by the Maritime Commission with funds authorized by Congress, thus were owned by the federal government. One of the new yards planned for construction was to be in Baltimore, Maryland, and would be run by the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation. That facility became known as the Bethlehem Fairfield Shipyard for the Fairfield section of Baltimore, where it was located. Bethlehem Shipbuilding was one of the nation's largest shipbuilding companies, having construction yards on the East Coast in Quincy, Massachusetts, on Staten Island, New York, and at Sparrows Point, also in Baltimore.[2]

On the West Coast, it had yards in San Pedro and San Francisco. Another was to be in Wilmington, North Carolina, and managed by the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company of Newport News, Virginia, which had one of the largest commercial yards in the U.S., and by 1941 was exclusively building large combatant ships for the Navy. That yard was to be called the North Carolina Shipbuilding Company.[3]

Additionally, yards were authorized to be built on the Gulf Coast at Mobile, Alabama, which was to be operated by the Mobile-based Alabama Drydock and Shipbuilding Company, in New Orleans on the Industrial Canal to be known as the Delta Shipbuilding Company and operated by the American Shipbuilding Company of Toledo, Ohio, one at Houston, Texas on the Houston Ship Channel to be operated by Todd Shipyards and called the Todd-Houston Shipbuilding Corp. On the West Coast, one yard was contracted to be built in Los Angeles at Terminal Island and managed by the Bechtel/McCone Company. That yard would be called the California Shipbuilding Corporation or CalShip for short. The Kaiser Corporation itself received a contract to build a new yard on the Columbia River at Portland, Oregon, which would be known as the Oregon Shipbuilding Corp.

See also: Type C1 ship#C1-B-early-years for details on the first C1-B contracts awarded in 1939

Liberty ship Joseph M. Terrel at Brunswick, GA c. 1944

The program grows as war nears

[edit]

As 1941 progressed, the construction of the emergency yards accelerated rapidly and keels were laid upon the new building ways. Well before the first wave of expansion was underway or the original 60 British ships were delivered, shortly after the Lend-Lease Bill was passed by Congress in March, a second wave of 306 additional ships was ordered, including 112 of the emergency type; the remainder was standard-type vessels and tankers. This additional number of ships required additional building ways, so the Maritime Commission authorized new ways to be added to the yards in both the Long Range and Emergency Programs and also contracted for a second yard to be built for the Kaiser-managed yards in Richmond, California. After this time, the original Kaiser yard became known as Richmond #1 and the new yard as Richmond #2.[3]

After the May 27[10] Declaration of Unlimited National Emergency by the President, the Emergency Program was further expanded in a third wave. To accommodate the addition of more ships to be built, additional ways were added to the yards in the program and the schedule of construction accelerated to build more ships per shipway per year. In total, this increase raised the planned output of all merchant shipbuilders to about 500 ships (5 million total deadweight tons) for 1942 and 700 ships (7 million tons) in 1943.[11]

Impacts of the program on war production and society

[edit]

Material shortages

[edit]

While this rapid expansion was taking place, all other defense industries were also in a maximum production mode to accommodate the orders being placed by the government for all other manner of military equipment, which included the massive wartime naval expansion program begun in 1940 with the passage of the Two Ocean Navy Act. So much growth in demand happening simultaneously in industries sharing common materials inevitably led to shortages in steel, propulsion machinery, and most other ship equipment. In many cases, the shortages affected the emergency program more than it did the Navy's, since its programs were deemed of higher priority in the eyes of the many wartime boards set up for deciding on where scarce resources would be allocated. All along the way, the Navy made claim to as much of the raw materials, steel, machinery, manufacturing plant allocations, and labor that it could get.[3]

Manpower shortages

[edit]

Another effect of the breakneck growth in production in the early years of the war was a labor shortage in the towns and cities where the emergency shipyards were being built. Since a de facto drought in shipbuilding work had occurred in the U.S. for nearly two decades, the number of experienced shipbuilders was quite small at the war's start. Additionally, many of those towns and cities where new yards were to be built had not been major shipbuilding centers before 1941, and these yards felt the shortage the most. To overcome this shortage, an aggressive recruiting program was undertaken by both the commission and the companies operating the shipyards. Since many of the emergency yards were being managed by established shipbuilding or repair companies, they could send some of their more skilled men to get "the new facilities on their feet and running".

However, a labor force with abilities to accomplish heavy industrial and mechanical work was most needed. To find this labor, recruiting was directed towards areas of the nation's hinterland, which had only a few years before found itself in the depths of the Great Depression in the not mistaken belief that men used to keeping farm machinery operating could build ships, as well. Getting these former farmers to decide to take up shipbuilding was not too difficult an undertaking because the wages offered to these previously poor men were much higher than had ever been offered to such working-class Americans before. This opportunity to earn a good wage showed the way to a possible future, where life might provide better security than in the poverty years of the 1930s, and that was all that was needed to get people on the move. Not uncommonly, entire families made the pilgrimage from places such as the Dust Bowl regions of Texas and Oklahoma to the shipbuilding centers on the West Coast or the Gulf of Mexico. With such a rapid influx of new workers to these communities, however, acute shortages in housing, schools and other needed services arose. Along with building new shipyards and ships, a need existed to build all the necessities for many workers to live in most of the largest shipbuilding centers such as Richmond, and Portland. Workers with just about any skilled trade had steady employment in those communities throughout the course of the war. Some skilled workers such as engineers were "frozen" in their jobs and were not allowed to leave their work, even to enlist.[12]

Women and minorities enter the shipbuilding workforce

[edit]

Before the war, shipbuilding had been exclusively a male occupation, but the need to reach out to new sources of labor for the emergency yards created opportunities for women to gain employment in the many trades that are needed to construct a ship. While not as much riveting as welding was used in the building of the emergency ships, the popular symbolic figure of Rosie the Riveter partly sprang from the wartime shipyard, where a new cadre of female shipfitters suddenly developed. Additionally, in the deep South, where African Americans had been excluded from the higher-paying industrial and manufacturing employment, such a shortage of labor existed for the yards on the Gulf that reluctant employers had to accept that black labor was required to meet production goals. In the end, the record productivity for black labor in the Gulf shipyards was no lower than for any other group employed.[13]

Program summary

[edit]

Shipyards in the program

[edit]

By the end of World War II, the list of shipyards building for the Maritime Commission comprised these yards (those in italics did not exist prior to the Emergency Program's start in 1940): For Seattle-Tacoma the Maritime Commission contracts prompted a reopening of a yard that had been dormant for 15 years. Bethlehem Staten Island and Bethlehem San Francisco only produced 5 C1-B each for the Maritime Commission through contracts awarded on a bidding basis in 1939 and following the passing of the Two-Ocean Navy Act of July 1940 switched to producing warships for the Navy. Bath Iron Works produced 4 C-2 before the war in a similar manner.

Yards on the East Coast
Yard name Location First delivery Types delivered Total number of ways Total vessels
Sun Shipbuilding and Drydock Co. Chester, Pennsylvania 1938 C2 type, C4 type, T2 type, T3 type probably 24 [14] 276 ships for Maritime Commission (MC) (plus 78 private account ships)
Bethlehem Sparrows Point Sparrows Point, Maryland 1939 C1 type, C2 type, C3 type, C5 type, R1 type, T2 type, T3 type number 77 ships for MC (plus 38 for private acct.)
Federal Shipbuilding Kearny, New Jersey 1939 C1 type, C2 type, C3 type, P2 type, T3 type number 84 ships for MC (plus 92 for USN or private account ships)
Newport News Shipbuilding Newport News, Virginia 1940 C2 type, C3 type, P4 type, T3 type number 18 ships for MC (remainder for USN)
Bethlehem Staten Island Staten Island, New York January 1941 C1 type number 5 ships for MC (remainder for USN)
Bath Iron Works Bath, Maine August 1941 C2 type number 4 ships for MC (remainder for USN)
Bethlehem Fairfield Baltimore, Maryland December 1941 EC2 type, S2 (LST) type, VC2 type 16 ways 514 ships for MC
Pusey and Jones Wilmington, Delaware January 1942 C1 type 3 ways 19 ships for MC
North Carolina Shipbuilding Wilmington, North Carolina February 1942 EC2 type, C2 type 9 ways 243 ships for USMC
Todd-Bath Shipbuilding South Portland, Maine March 1942 British Ocean type, EC2 type 13 ways 30 ships for UK, 242 ships for USMC
Walsh-Kaiser Company, Inc. Providence, Rhode Island February 1943 EC2 type, S2 (frigate) type, S4 (transport) type 6 ways 64 ships for MC
Southeastern Shipbuilding Savannah, Georgia March 1943 EC2 type, C1-M type 6 ways 105 ships for MC
St. Johns River Shipbuilding Company Jacksonville, Florida April 1943 EC2 type, T1 type 6 ways 94 ships for MC
J.A. Jones Construction Brunswick, Georgia May 1943 EC2 type, C1-M type 6 ways 99 ships for MC
Penn-Jersey Shipbuilding Corp. Camden, New Jersey August 1943 N3 type number 14 ships for MC
Welding Shipyards Norfolk, Virginia November 1943 T3 type 1 way 10 ships for USMC (remainder for private account ships)

There were 4 regional concentrations of shipbuilding on the west coast: San Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland/Vancouver and Puget Sound. All the yards in this table were in one of those regions.

Yards on the West Coast
Yard name Location First delivery date Types delivered Total number of ways Total vessels built
Moore Dry Dock Company Oakland, California July 1940 C2 type, R2 type, C3 type 4 ways 112 ships
Bethlehem Steel Corp. San Francisco, California February 1941 C1-B number 5 ships for MC (remainder for USN)
Seattle-Tacoma Shipbuilding Tacoma, Washington April 1941 C1-B, C3, T1

MC: cargo
RN: escort carriers
USN: escort carriers, troop transports, gasoline tankers, seaplane and destroyer tenders

8 ways 5 ships for MC, 44 for US Navy, 26 for Royal Navy
Western Pipe & Steel South San Francisco, California April 1941 C1 type, C3 type 4 ways 23 ships for MC
Kaiser Richmond No. 1 Yard Richmond, California August 1941 British Ocean type, EC2 type, VC2 type 7 ways 30 ships for UK, 191 ships for MC
Kaiser Richmond No. 2 Yard Richmond, California September 1941 EC2 type, VC2 type 12 ways 442 ships for MC
Consolidated Steel Long Beach Long Beach, California September 1941 C1-B, P1 9
Oregon Shipbuilding Portland, Oregon January 1942 EC2 type, VC2 type 11 ways 474 ship
California Shipbuilding Terminal Island, Los Angeles, California February 1942 EC2 type, VC2 type 14 ways 443 ships for MC
Kaiser Vancouver Shipyard Vancouver, Washington July 1942 EC2 type, S2 (LST) type, S4 (escort carrier) type, VC2 type and C4 type 12 ways 143 ships
MarinShip Sausalito, California October 1942 EC2 type, T2 type 6 ways 93 ships for MC
Pacific Bridge Company Alameda, California December 1942 N3 type 2 ways (basins) 9 ships for MC (remainder for USN)
Kaiser Swan Island Shipyard Swan Island, Portland, Oregon December 1942 T2 type 8 ways 147 ships for MC
Consolidated Steel WIlmington Wilmington, California December 1942 C1-B, C1-M, C2, S2 (frigate), S4 (transport) 8 ways N ships
Kaiser Richmond No. 4 Yard Richmond, California April 1943 S2 (LST) type, S2 (frigate) type, C1-M type 3 ways 51 ships
Kaiser Richmond No. 3 Yard Richmond, California August 1943 C4 type 5 ways (basins) 35 ships for MC
Bethlehem Alameda Works Alameda, California August 1944 P2 type 4 ways 10 ships for MC

Major regional concentrations were in or near Houston and at the port of Mobile, Alabama.

Yards on the Gulf Coast
Yard name Location First delivery date Types delivered Total number of ways Total vessels built
Ingalls Shipbuilding Pascagoula, Mississippi 1940 C3 type 6 ways 80 ships for MC or private
(Barges in Decatur AL plant)
Tampa Shipbuilding Tampa, Florida July 1940 C2 type 3 ways 13 ships for MC (37 more for USN)
Gulf Shipbuilding Chickasaw, Alabama April 1941 C2 type probably 4 [15] 36 ships for MC (35 for USN, 2 for RN)
Pennsylvania Shipyards Beaumont, Texas May 1941 C1 type, C1-M type, N3 type, V4 type 5 way 99 ships for MC
Todd Houston Shipbuilding Houston, Texas May 1942 EC2 type, T1 type 9 ways 222 ships for MC
Delta Shipbuilding New Orleans, Louisiana May 1942 EC2 type 8 ways 188 ships for MC
Alabama Drydock Co. Mobile, Alabama May 1942 EC2 type, T2 type 12 ways 123 ships for MC (remainder for private)
Avondale Marine Ways Westwego, Louisiana January 1943 N3 type, V4 type number 22 ships (remainder for private)
J.A. Jones Construction Co. Panama City, Florida March 1943 EC2 type, T1 type 6 ways 108 ships for MC
Pendleton Shipyard Company New Orleans, Louisiana August 1943 N3 type, V4 type number 13 ships for MC
Todd Galveston Drydocks Co. Galveston, Texas September 1943 T1 type number 13 ships
Yards on the Great Lakes
Yard name Location First delivery date Types delivered Total number of ways Total vessels built
Cargill Inc. Savage, Minnesota November 1941 T1 type number 18 for US Navy

[16]

Leatham D. Smith Shipbuilding Co. Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin November 1942 C1-M type, N3 type, S2 (frigate) type number 34 ships for MC (remainder to USN or other govt.)
Walter Butler Shipbuilders Inc. Superior, Wisconsin December 1942 C1-M type, N3 type, S2 (frigate) type number 52 ships for MC
Froemming Brothers Milwaukee, Wisconsin April 1943 C1-M type, V4 type, S2 (frigate) type number 26 ships for MC
American Shipbuilding Lorain, Ohio May 1943 L6 type, S2 (frigate) type number 14 ships for MC (remainder 35 for USN or private)
Walter Butler Shipbuilders Duluth, Minnesota May 1943 C1-M type, N3 type, T1 type number 38 ships for MC (remainder to private)
Globe Shipbuilding Superior, Wisconsin May 1943 C1-M type, V4 type, S2 (frigate) type number 29 ships for MC
Great Lakes Engineering Co. Ecorse, Michigan May 1943 L6 type number 6 ships for MC (remainder for private)
Great Lakes Engineering Works Ashtabula, Ohio May 1943 L6 type number 4 ships (remainder for private)
American Shipbuilding Cleveland, Ohio June 1943 L6 type, S2 (frigate) type number 9 ships for MC (16 for USN)
Missouri Valley Bridge & Iron Co. Evansville, Indiana & Leavenworth, Kansas September 1942 LST, LCT, crane ships, barges number 171 LST, 64 LCTs, 3 crane ship

Ships built by type

[edit]
Type of ship
(incl. all variant designs w/in type) 		Deliveries 1940 Deliveries 1941 Deliveries 1942 Deliveries 1943 Deliveries 1944 Deliveries 1945 Totals for all years
C1 type cargo ship 1 29 20 78 64 2 194
C1-M type cargo ship 0 0 0 0 64 189 220
C2 type cargo ship 6 17 20 54 109 82 309
EC2 type (1) cargo ship 0 7 55 1279 728 144 2755
VC2 type cargo ship 0 0 0 0 208 322 530
C3 type cargo ship 26 14 25 65 44 36 315
C4 type cargo ship 0 0 0 5 26 34 65
T1 type tanker 0 0 0 25 37 46 108
T2 type tanker 0 2 31 139 218 139 529
T3 type tanker 4 1 2 21 14 10 59
P2 type troop transport 0 0 0 0 3 16 19
S2 type frigate 0 0 0 18 59 8 85
S3 type landing ship 0 0 12 64 0 0 76
S4 type escort carrier 0 0 0 19 31 0 50
S4 type attack transport 0 0 0 0 29 35 64
L6 type Great Lakes ore carriers 0 0 0 16 0 0 16
N3 type cargo ship 0 0 0 46 51 6 107
V4 type tug 0 0 0 48 14 0 62

(1) includes 60 British type

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Emergency Shipbuilding Program

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Emergency Shipbuilding Program (late 1940–September 1945) was a government initiative administered by the U.S. Maritime Commission to rapidly produce standardized cargo ships, chiefly the class (EC2 design), in order to replenish tonnage losses from German attacks and support Allied logistics during . Announced by President on January 3, 1941, as part of an initial order for 200 vessels to aid Britain, the program expanded dramatically after the U.S. entry into the war following , prioritizing over complexity through simplified oil-fired designs, centralized crew quarters, and prefabricated assembly methods. By the program's conclusion in 1945, it had overseen the construction of over 6,000 ships across emergency and expanded shipyards, with more than 2,600 being ships, representing a feat of industrial mobilization that delivered essential transport capacity for troops, supplies, and materials across global theaters. Key achievements included record-breaking construction speeds—such as the launch of the first ship, SS Patrick Henry, in September 1941, and subsequent vessels completed in weeks rather than months—enabled by instead of riveting and modular , which transformed American capacity from peacetime idleness to wartime dominance. While the program's scale averted maritime strangulation for the Allies, it was not without challenges, including early structural failures in some ships due to brittle fracture in welded hulls under cold conditions, prompting post-war metallurgical improvements.

Historical Background

Pre-Program Merchant Marine Capacity

In 1939, the U.S. merchant fleet totaled approximately 11 million gross tons, encompassing around 1,150 ocean-going vessels, though much of this capacity was obsolete, laid up, or confined to domestic or coastal routes rather than competitive international service. This limited active tonnage—estimated at under 6 million deadweight tons for deep-sea cargo carriers—reflected a post-World War I decline exacerbated by high operating costs, foreign subsidies, and the Jones Act's requirements, leaving the fleet ill-equipped for sustained wartime . The Neutrality Acts of 1935, 1936, and 1937 imposed severe operational constraints, banning U.S. ships from combat zones, prohibiting arming of merchant vessels, and restricting trade with belligerents to "" terms that favored neutrals with stronger navies. These policies, driven by isolationist sentiments to avert incidents like the sinking, led to a sharp drop in foreign engagements, with U.S.-flagged tonnage carrying only a fraction of exports compared to pre-1930s levels and prompting some owners to reflag vessels under foreign convenience flags to evade restrictions. Historical precedents underscored the fleet's vulnerability: during , German s sank over 11 million tons of Allied shipping, including dozens of U.S. merchant vessels totaling thousands of tons after April 1917, compelling emergency construction to replace losses and sustain supply lines. In the opening phases of , attacks inflicted 165 Allied merchant sinkings in 1939 and 563 in 1940, with cumulative tonnage losses exceeding 4 million gross tons by year's end—outstripping global merchant builds and culminating in British warnings of imminent collapse, as monthly sinkings neared or surpassed new deliveries by mid-1940.

Legislative and Policy Foundations

The was created under the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, which declared a national policy to develop and maintain an adequate merchant marine to promote foreign commerce and serve as a naval auxiliary in time of war or national emergency. The Act abolished the prior U.S. Shipping Board and empowered the Commission to investigate shipping conditions, regulate rates, and provide financial incentives, including construction-differential subsidies to offset the higher costs of building vessels in domestic yards compared to foreign competitors—typically covering up to 50% of the cost differential—and operating subsidies via mail contracts for essential trade routes. These provisions aimed to reverse the U.S. fleet's decline to less than 10% of global tonnage by the mid-1930s, driven by unsubsidized American operators' inability to compete with state-supported foreign lines, thereby ensuring sealift capacity for defense without relying solely on peacetime market dynamics. By 1940, escalating Axis submarine campaigns, which sank over 1,000 Allied ships in the first year of unrestricted warfare, exposed the fragility of transatlantic supply lines and prompted U.S. policy adjustments toward emergency-scale production. The fall of in intensified this threat, coinciding with Britain's initial emergency orders for U.S.-built cargo ships to replenish losses, as domestic Allied yards proved insufficient. Drawing on the 1936 Act's defense mandate, the Maritime Commission shifted from subsidized peacetime construction to preparatory measures for standardized designs, justified by the causal imperative to outpace attrition rates—where sinkings exceeded 500,000 gross tons monthly—through government-coordinated resource allocation rather than fragmented private efforts. This framework laid the groundwork for invoking broader authorities, including expanded appropriations under the defense budget and executive directives, without immediate full requisitioning of industry, as the Commission's existing mechanisms allowed rapid to avert merchant fleet collapse amid rising U-boat interdictions. Such interventions reflected a pragmatic recognition that private , constrained by high costs and limited pre-war demand, could not achieve the required output velocity—averaging under 100 vessels annually prior to —to counter strategic vulnerabilities.

Program Initiation

Announcement and Initial Objectives

On January 3, 1941, President announced the initiation of what became known as the Emergency Shipbuilding Program, directing the construction of 200 standardized cargo ships at an estimated cost of $300 to $350 million. The program emphasized prefabricated assembly-line techniques modeled on British designs, such as the Ocean-class vessels, to enable rapid production in U.S. shipyards. These ships were to feature simplified hulls and omit non-essential amenities, prioritizing cargo capacity and durability over speed, comfort, or advanced fittings to minimize costs and construction time. The core objectives centered on offsetting projected merchant marine losses from Axis submarine warfare, particularly in support of Allied supply lines across the Atlantic, as U.S. involvement in aid to Britain escalated tonnage requirements. Roosevelt's directive framed the effort as a defensive imperative to sustain global trade routes vital to , with initial targets focusing on dry-cargo vessels of around 10,000 gross tons each, capable of 11 knots. Production goals stressed through modular components and workforce expansion, aiming to deliver the fleet within two years to counter immediate vulnerabilities rather than pursuing bespoke or high-performance alternatives. This launch reflected pragmatic engineering choices, drawing from wartime exigencies where empirical assessments of sinkings—exceeding 1,000 ships in 1940 alone—necessitated volume over refinement, as evidenced by contemporaneous British yard outputs. Early planning avoided complex innovations, instead adapting proven tramp steamer blueprints to U.S. industrial capacities for efficient replication.

Early Contracts and Yard Mobilization

In early 1941, following President Franklin D. Roosevelt's directive to the , initial contracts were awarded for the construction of 200 standardized cargo ships under the Emergency Shipbuilding Program, with allocations prioritizing both established private shipyards and newly established emergency facilities to address capacity shortfalls. These contracts targeted yards such as Steel's Fairfield Shipyard in Baltimore, Maryland, which received orders for multiple Liberty-type vessels, and in , leveraging their existing infrastructure for rapid mobilization while expanding berths and ways. The private sector's responsiveness proved causal to early progress, as yards like initiated site activations, including the construction of additional slipways and fabrication shops, enabling the program to bypass prolonged federal yard development. To accelerate output, the Maritime Commission prioritized recruitment of managerial talent from non-maritime industries, such as and , devising fixed-price contracting methods to incentivize efficiency and allocating the first 200 ships across seven new emergency yards—three on the Atlantic coast, two on the Gulf, and two on the Pacific—to supplement established operations. By mid-1941, standardization protocols for the EC2-S-C1 design were implemented, specifying modular and welded to minimize variability and training needs, with contracts emphasizing cost-plus-fixed-fee arrangements for new facilities to encourage private investment in tooling and workforce scaling. This approach facilitated quick yard mobilization, as seen in Bethlehem-Fairfield's expansion to handle parallel builds. Early production metrics underscored the program's nascent phase: the keel for SS , the first , was laid down on April 30, 1941, at Bethlehem-Fairfield Shipyard, with launch occurring on September 27, 1941—designated Liberty Fleet Day—alongside 13 other vessels from various yards, marking an initial output rate of approximately one ship per contracted yard per quarter before efficiencies scaled. The required 244 days from keel-laying to launch, reflecting logistical ramp-up challenges but validating the private yards' ability to deliver under government directives without prior mass-production experience in merchant vessels. Delivery followed in December 1941, enabling its maiden voyage in January 1942, as yards mobilized labor forces exceeding pre-war levels through targeted hiring drives.

Expansion and Peak Production

Pre-War Buildup and Standardization

In response to escalating threats to global shipping lanes, the U.S. Maritime Commission accelerated shipyard preparations in early 1941 through the , emphasizing standardized designs to enable rapid production of merchant vessels. The , a simple cargo design based on British precedents but adapted for mass output, became the cornerstone, with its blueprint finalized to permit across multiple yards. This unification directly linked policy directives to output gains, as nine shipyards equipped with 65 building ways were tasked with constructing 260 vessels by mid-year, fostering through consistent specifications. By summer 1941, yards shifted from traditional riveting to and techniques, which allowed hull sections to be assembled in modules off-site before integration, slashing assembly time. , previously limited by naval treaties, was scaled for civilian hulls, enabling up to 50 miles of welds per ship and reducing skilled labor dependency. These methods, tested in initial keels laid in January 1941, standardized modular by fall, with components produced in dedicated facilities to minimize on-site fitting. The causal impact was evident in the program's early milestones, as prefabricated sections streamlined workflows and mitigated bottlenecks in yard capacity. Quantitative buildup reflected these policy-driven changes: shipyard employment expanded from approximately 60,000 workers in the late to over 150,000 by late 1941, fueled by recruitment for expanded facilities. Monthly ship launches rose from negligible pre-program rates to a symbolic peak on September 27, 1941, when 14 Liberty ships were simultaneously christened across U.S. yards, validating the standardization's role in surging output. This pre-Pearl Harbor momentum laid the groundwork for scaled production, with initial vessels like SS demonstrating viable 10,000-ton cargo carriers built in under a year. ![SHIPS_FOR_VICTORY.SPEED-MORE_SPEED-NARA-_515406.jpg][float-right]

Wartime Scaling and Innovations

During the 1942–1945 peak of World War II, the Emergency Shipbuilding Program dramatically scaled merchant vessel production through rapid yard expansions and process optimizations necessitated by Allied shipping losses to Axis submarines. Industrialist Henry J. Kaiser's facilities, including the Richmond Shipyards operational by early 1942, exemplified this surge, constructing over 1,400 ships across seven sites using assembly-line methods adapted from automotive manufacturing. These yards achieved launch rates enabling one Liberty ship every few days at peak efficiency, with overall U.S. output averaging approximately 1.5 Liberty ships daily by 1943. A key innovation was the widespread adoption of prefabrication and electric arc welding, which supplanted traditional riveting to accelerate hull assembly; welding accounted for about one-third of direct labor but reduced total construction time from initial months-long builds to weeks. Labor productivity in Liberty ship construction increased at an average annual rate of 40 percent from 1942 onward, driven by standardized designs and modular section pre-assembly off-site. Kaiser's yards set benchmarks, completing the Liberty ship SS Robert E. Peary in a record 4 days, 15 hours, and 26 minutes from keel-laying to launch in November 1942. To address Liberty ships' limitations in speed and capacity, production transitioned to Victory ships starting in April 1943, with the class featuring steam turbine engines yielding 15–17 knots and enhanced cargo volumes for superior wartime utility. The initial Victory vessel, SS United Victory, launched from a yard that month, marking the program's adaptive pivot toward faster, more robust vessels without halting Liberty output. By war's end, this scaling yielded 2,710 Liberty ships and 531 Victory ships (including 414 cargo types and 117 attack transports), bolstering replenishment and sustaining transatlantic supply lines critical to Allied operations.

Operational Realities

Resource Constraints

The Emergency Shipbuilding Program encountered acute steel shortages in 1942 and 1943, as competing demands from , , and naval strained national supplies despite production expansions. Initial projections anticipated steel output falling below 1941 levels, leading the to enforce priority allocations favoring high-priority sectors like . Shipbuilding targets escalated dramatically, from 5 million deadweight tons planned for 1942 to over 25 million, necessitating reallocations that diverted from civilian and lower-priority uses. These constraints compelled adaptations, including widespread adoption of over riveting, which conserved by eliminating material overlaps—each required nearly 50 miles of welds. scarcity also resulted in the use of lower-quality alloys, contributing to brittle fractures in early vessels due to inadequate in cold conditions. The Maritime Commission expedited material deliveries, such as piping and plates, to avert delays, while the introduction of the Controlled Materials Plan in November 1942 systematized allocations of , aluminum, and other metals. Resource bottlenecks delayed early production, with shipyard capacity expanding only 10% amid 25% output goals in 1942, postponing operations like from mid-September. Emory S. Land advocated reallocations in October 1942 to support amphibious needs, underscoring trade-offs in industrial prioritization. Despite these impacts, mobilization efficiencies—through design standardization and prefab components—reduced build times from 250 days in early 1942 to under 50 days by late 1943, mitigating timeline disruptions. strains, including inland rail limits for heavy plates, were addressed via dedicated routing, enabling sustained output amid wartime demands.

Labor Mobilization and Shortages

The U.S. workforce expanded rapidly in response to program demands, growing from 168,000 employees in to a peak of 1,217,000 in November , primarily through aggressive recruitment and initiatives coordinated by shipyard operators under Maritime Commission oversight. These training programs, often requiring as little as 80-160 hours for basic skills like and riveting, enabled the integration of unskilled labor into production roles, with shipyards establishing facilities to qualify thousands weekly by mid-1942. Economic incentives, including rates that doubled or tripled pre-war levels—averaging 1.00−1.00-1.25 per hour for semi-skilled tasks by —drove voluntary enlistment, attracting workers from agriculture, retail, and pools amid low overall joblessness. To retain essential personnel amid military drafts, Selective Service implemented occupational deferments for workers in critical trades such as , pipefitting, and electrical work, classifying them as vital to defense production and exempting them from induction quotas starting in 1941, with blanket protections expanded for over 100,000 skilled roles by 1945. These measures, prioritized over broader , stemmed from empirical assessments of production bottlenecks, as shipyards reported up to 20% monthly attrition from draft calls in early 1942 before deferral policies stabilized staffing. Persistent shortages, exacerbated by the enlistment of over 10 million men into the armed forces by 1943, necessitated drawing from non-traditional pools, including women whose representation in shipyards rose from 6.5% in to 13.3% by December, often in roles like riveting and assembly made feasible by simplified designs and . This shift was pragmatic, responding to male labor depletion rather than ideological imperatives, with participation incentivized by wages 50-100% above civilian female averages and provisions at select yards. Retention improved post-training, as women's monthly turnover rates fell to within 1-2 percentage points of men's by late 1943-early 1944, reflecting effective onboarding and stable pay amid high demand.

Technical and Design Aspects

Liberty Ship Development

The Liberty ship design originated from an adaptation of a British tramp steamer concept developed in , , in 1879, which had proven reliable over decades of service until the mid-1930s. The U.S. Maritime Commission selected this established blueprint to enable rapid, standardized production of cargo vessels amid urgent wartime demands for replacing sunk . This choice prioritized empirical simplicity and proven seaworthiness over novel engineering, facilitating assembly-line methods in multiple shipyards. Liberty ships measured 441 feet in overall length, with a beam of 56 feet 11 inches and a draft of 27 feet 9 inches, achieving a full-load displacement of 14,245 tons and a deadweight capacity of approximately 10,419 tons. Propulsion came from a triple-expansion reciprocating generating 2,500 horsepower from two oil-fired boilers, yielding a service speed of 11 knots sufficient for operations. These specifications balanced capacity needs against material and construction constraints, drawing on causal principles to ensure the hull could withstand typical transatlantic stresses without excessive complexity. A primary innovation for accelerating output was the shift to welded over traditional riveting, which eliminated roughly one-third of direct labor costs associated with punching, drilling, and riveting processes. permitted faster joins using semi-skilled labor and reduced overall build time, aligning with the program's empirical goal of outpacing vessel losses through volume production. Between 1941 and 1945, 2,710 Liberty ships were completed across eighteen U.S. shipyards, forming the backbone for early wartime supply convoys.

Victory Ships and Variants

The Victory ship design represented an evolutionary advancement in the U.S. Maritime Commission's wartime merchant vessel program, introduced in to address limitations in speed and capacity observed in prior standardized hulls. The first vessel, SS United Victory, was launched on February 28, , with production emphasizing enhanced propulsion systems, including cross-compound steam turbines delivering 6,000 to 8,500 horsepower, enabling sustained speeds of 15 to 17 knots—sufficient for independent operation or faster integration without excessive fuel demands. These upgrades stemmed from empirical assessments of operational data, prioritizing hydrodynamic efficiency and structural reinforcements to mitigate fracture risks under combat loading, though welding techniques retained some vulnerability to brittle failure in cold waters. Standard Victory ships followed the VC2-S-AP2 configuration, a 455-foot carrier with a of approximately 10,800 tons, optimized for bulk like or munitions. Variants extended applicability: the VC2-S-AP3 subtype adapted for colliers, featuring reinforced holds for transport to sustain naval fueling depots, while a limited number incorporated passenger accommodations for troop redeployment, yielding 117 such transports amid the 531 total Victory hulls completed by 1946. No dedicated tanker variants were mass-produced under the Victory designation during peak wartime output, as separate T2-SE-A1 designs handled needs; post-delivery conversions for oil carriage occurred sparingly, reflecting causal prioritization of dry-cargo versatility over specialized liquid bulker roles. This diversification, informed by logistics feedback from Atlantic and Pacific theaters, broadened program resilience against interdiction and port bottlenecks. Production metrics underscored the design's causal improvements in manufacturability: average build times contracted to 80-100 days per hull through refined prefabrication and yard workflow optimizations, contrasting initial benchmarks exceeding 200 days for comparable earlier vessels and enabling output scaling to meet 1944-1945 replacement demands. Despite these gains, empirical records noted persistent defects, such as hull distortions from rushed plate alignment, which compromised long-term seaworthiness in roughly 10-15% of deliveries, necessitating post-launch repairs that strained resource allocation. Overall, the 531 units delivered—primarily from West Coast yards—facilitated over 25 million deadweight tons of wartime tonnage, with higher speeds empirically correlating to reduced loss rates in contested routes by enabling evasion maneuvers.

Achievements and Contributions

Output Statistics and Strategic Impact

The Emergency Shipbuilding Program produced 5,777 merchant ships between 1939 and 1945, with the bulk completed from 1941 onward, including 2,751 Liberty ships designed for rapid mass production. These vessels, totaling nearly 40 million gross tons, outpaced Axis sinkings after mid-1943, when monthly new construction exceeded gross merchant losses in the Atlantic, reversing the tonnage deficit and enabling sustained Allied convoys despite U-boat campaigns that peaked at over 600,000 tons sunk per month in 1942. This logistical superiority was pivotal in the Battle of the Atlantic, where Allied shipping availability grew from a vulnerable low in 1942 to surplus capacity by 1944, directly supporting offensives by ensuring fuel, munitions, and troop transports reached fronts without interruption. Strategically, the program's output underpinned Lend-Lease shipments, delivering critical cargo to Britain and the via thousands of and ships transferred under the 1941 act, which sustained Eastern Front logistics and prevented collapse of Allied supply chains. In the Normandy invasion on June 6, 1944, over 200 U.S. merchant vessels from the program ferried troops, vehicles, and supplies across the Channel, with many scuttled to form Mulberry harbors that facilitated the landing of 2 million tons of materiel in the first weeks. Pacific operations similarly relied on these ships for island-hopping campaigns, maintaining supply lines over vast distances to bases like and despite Japanese submarine threats, where consistent tonnage delivery enabled amphibious assaults that captured key atolls by 1945. The program's scale amplified economic output through direct multipliers in steel production—requiring over 30 million tons annually at peak—and employment, peaking at more than 1 million shipyard workers, which integrated with broader wartime GDP expansion from $101 billion in 1940 to $212 billion in 1945 by channeling idle capacity into high-velocity industrial chains. This not only offset early war losses but strategically compelled Axis resource diversion, as German U-boat production strained to match Allied replacement rates, ultimately contributing to the collapse of sustained offensives by late 1944.

Economic Mobilization Effects

The U.S. government's expansion of shipyard capacity during the Emergency Shipbuilding Program involved investments totaling approximately $2 billion in new facilities and upgrades by , representing about one-fifth of overall wartime factory construction expenditures. These funds, channeled through the U.S. Maritime Commission, enabled the construction of emergency yards and the modernization of existing ones, directly spurring growth in ancillary industries such as steel fabrication, welding equipment manufacturing, and component subcontracting networks. With around 6,000 subcontractors supplying parts for merchant vessels alone, the program created ripple effects across , boosting demand for raw materials and specialized tooling that supported broader wartime production without relying on excessive central directives. Labor productivity in shipyards surged after 1942, driven primarily by performance-based incentives in private contracts rather than top-down mandates. Industrialist Henry Kaiser's yards, for instance, implemented bonuses such as $400 per day for accelerated delivery and 50 cents per hour saved in labor, contributing to annual productivity gains of around 40% through and techniques. This resulted in construction times dropping from over 180 days in 1941 to as low as 30 days by late , with output per worker rising markedly due to these market-oriented motivators, even as capital investments accounted for up to 50% of the improvements. Such private-sector adaptations outperformed rigid planning models, as evidenced by the program's overall scaling to 5,777 merchant ships without proportional increases in workforce size. Postwar demobilization demonstrated the program's adaptability with minimal long-term economic distortions, as shipyards swiftly reconverted to civilian uses amid a booming . By October 1945, the had been dismantled, and excess capacity shifted to commercial shipping and repair without triggering sustained or spikes, with national falling to historic lows and GNP growing robustly in real terms. This transition, facilitated by the absence of entrenched planning bureaucracies, allowed ancillary sectors to reorient toward consumer goods, underscoring the resilience of incentive-driven expansions over state-controlled frameworks.

Criticisms and Shortcomings

Construction Quality Issues

The Liberty ships constructed under the Emergency Shipbuilding Program exhibited significant quality issues due to the prioritization of production speed over material testing and workmanship standards, resulting in hulls vulnerable to brittle fracture. The plates, often of inconsistent quality with elevated ductile-to-brittle transition temperatures exceeding operational conditions in cold waters, combined with all-welded that eliminated traditional rivets as crack barriers, created conditions for rapid crack propagation from stress concentrations at welds and notches. This was causally linked to insufficient preheating, poor weld filler compatibility, and multiaxial stresses that induced embrittlement, as evidenced by post-failure metallurgical analyses revealing cleavage fractures rather than ductile tearing. A prominent early failure occurred on November 24, 1943, when the SS John P. Gaines broke in half amid a storm approximately 40 miles south of Cherikof Island, Alaska, sinking with the loss of 10 lives out of 47 crew. Investigations attributed the breakup to a brittle fracture initiating at a weld defect under low-temperature impact loading, highlighting the steel's notch sensitivity and the absence of fracture-arresting features. Similar incidents followed, with at least three Liberty ships suffering complete midship breaks without prior warning, though rescue efforts mitigated further casualties in cases like the SS Pendleton and SS Fort Mercer. In response, approximately 1,500 Liberty ships underwent retrofits, including the riveting of crack-arrestor straps and doubler plates to decks and hulls, which effectively halted propagating cracks in most instances and prevented additional catastrophic failures post-implementation. By September 1944, reports documented at least 785 cracking incidents across 558 ships, an underestimate of the total, yet structural defects accounted for only a fraction of overall losses—fewer than 20 total breakups among over 2,700 built—with casualties limited primarily to the Gaines incident, demonstrating adaptive fixes amid persistent risks from hasty assembly. These events underscored the material limits of low-alloy steels under dynamic loading, informing later research despite the program's wartime imperatives.

Efficiency and Cost Overruns

The Shipbuilding Program encountered initial time overruns in construction, with early vessels in 1941-1942 requiring up to 250 days and 1.1 million labor hours due to scaling untested methods and across new emergency yards. These delays stemmed from the program's vast scope—aiming for thousands of standardized ships amid shortages and inexperience—rather than inherent flaws in , as build times subsequently plummeted to under 50 days and 0.3-0.5 million hours per ship by 1943 through iterative process refinements like larger cranes and worker-led innovations. Costs per Liberty ship averaged approximately $2 million, consistent with pre-program estimates adjusted for wartime conditions, as and competitive bidding among private contractors contained escalation despite and strains. This pricing yielded a favorable return, with each ship capable of transporting cargo valued at $87 million, amplifying the program's strategic value beyond raw expenditures. Bureaucratic elements in U.S. Maritime Commission contracting, such as rigid specifications and multi-yard coordination, contributed to early inefficiencies by limiting site-specific adaptations, yet yards afforded operational autonomy—exemplified by Henry J. Kaiser's facilities—outperformed peers, averaging 45 days per ship against an industry benchmark of 230 days through aggressive prefabrication and minimal oversight interference. Overall, these challenges reflected the exigencies of rapid mobilization at unprecedented scale, delivering net efficiencies that enabled peak monthly output of 800,000 tons by mid-war.

Legacy and Post-War Assessment

Influence on Maritime Policy

The Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946, signed into law by President Truman on March 8, 1946, marked a pivotal shift in U.S. maritime policy by addressing the disposal of the wartime surplus fleet amassed under the Emergency Shipbuilding Program. This legislation enabled the to sell or charter approximately 5,000 excess vessels, including and ships, to domestic and foreign buyers using a standardized pricing formula that accounted for construction costs adjusted for depreciation and obsolescence. The Act applied to ships of 1,500 gross tons or larger, prioritizing absorption to transition from wartime mobilization to peacetime commerce while recouping federal investments exceeding $20 billion in ship construction. Complementing sales, the Act authorized the retention of select vessels in the (NDRF), formalized under 50 U.S.C. App. § 1735 et seq., to maintain strategic readiness without full operational costs. By mid-1947, over 2,000 ships entered reserve status at sites like and Beaumont, ensuring mothballed tonnage could be reactivated for emergencies at a fraction of new-build expenses. This reserve mechanism directly extended the program's influence, embedding a of contingency preservation that avoided total scrapping and supported minimal peacetime maritime sustainment. The demonstrated wartime capacity to mass-produce ships also shaped yard retention policies, with key facilities preserved in standby mode rather than liquidated, facilitating swift scaling during the outbreak on June 25, 1950. Existing infrastructure from the emergency yards enabled the construction of 234 new merchant vessels between 1951 and 1955, underscoring the causal linkage between post-1945 readiness investments and emergency responsiveness without reliance on foreign builds. This approach prioritized empirical continuity in subsidized minimal capacity over abrupt privatization, influencing subsequent doctrines like those under the Maritime Administration established in 1950.

Long-Term Industry Implications

Following World War II, the massive surplus of approximately 5,500 Liberty and Victory ships—totaling over 50 million deadweight tons—created a severe market glut, prompting widespread scrapping and reserve storage rather than sustained commercial operation. By 1947, the U.S. Maritime Commission had mothballed or sold off much of the fleet, with scrapping rates accelerating into the early 1950s as peacetime demand failed to absorb the excess capacity. This led to significant atrophy in U.S. shipbuilding infrastructure; shipyard employment plummeted from wartime peaks of over 1 million workers to fewer than 100,000 by the mid-1950s, and many facilities closed or converted to other uses due to lack of orders. The program's emphasis on , , and welding techniques demonstrated scalable for rapid , reducing construction time from over a year pre-war to as little as 42 days per vessel by , principles later referenced in contingency planning for industrial surges. However, peacetime underinvestment in modernizing yards and workforce training undermined these gains; unlike wartime mandates, commercial incentives prioritized short-term cost-cutting over capacity maintenance, resulting in outdated facilities ill-equipped for competitive post-war builds. Critics, including maritime analysts, attribute this to insufficient and R&D funding, contrasting with the program's temporary success under emergency authority. In comparison, foreign competitors like and European nations rebuilt fleets with sustained subsidies and protectionist policies, eroding U.S. dominance; by , America's share of global merchant had fallen below 9 percent from near-monopoly levels during the war, while subsidized yards abroad captured newbuild markets. This shift reflected causal market distortions from the wartime glut, compounded by higher U.S. labor and regulatory costs, leading to a long-term contraction where domestic yards produced under 1 percent of global commercial by the . The Emergency Shipbuilding Program thus highlighted potential for but exposed vulnerabilities to post-crisis , informing later debates on strategic fleet sustainment without reversing industrial decline.

References

  1. https://www.maritime.dot.gov/multimedia/emergency-shipbuilding-program
  2. https://www.savetheways.com/emergency-shipbuilding-program
  3. https://www.construction-physics.com/p/how-the-us-built-5000-ships-in-wwii
  4. http://www.nytimes.com/1966/04/07/archives/merchant-fleet-under-1939-level-institute-notes-continuing.html
  5. https://www.usmaritimecommission.de/
  6. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/neutrality-acts-1930s
  7. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=tlj
  8. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/FRB/pages/1920-1924/23262_1920-1924.pdf
  9. https://uboat.net/allies/merchants/losses_year.html
  10. https://rslnsw.org.au/news/the-battle-of-the-atlantic/
  11. http://www.usmm.org/mmact1936.html
  12. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1967/january/merchant-marine-subsidies-and-competition
  13. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/merchant-marine-world-war-ii
  14. https://www.maritime.dot.gov/history/historical-documents-and-resources/maritime-administration%25E2%2580%2599s-first-100-years-1916-%25E2%2580%2593-2016
  15. https://www.nps.gov/articles/liberty-ships-and-victory-ships-america-s-lifeline-in-war-teaching-with-historic-places.htm
  16. https://www.nytimes.com/1941/01/04/archives/roosevelt-starts-rush-plan-to-build-200-merchant-ships-he-announces.html
  17. https://www.bowdoin.edu/news/2021/03/on-the-prow-of-liberty.html
  18. https://uboat.net/allies/ships/merchants_shipbuilding.htm
  19. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/liberty-ships-production.htm
  20. https://www.fmc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/REPORT_TO_CONGRESS_1941.pdf
  21. https://maryland400.org/2024/02/29/bethlehem-fairfield-shipyard-builds-the-first-liberty-ship/
  22. https://www.maritime.dot.gov/multimedia/ss-patrick-henry
  23. https://booktrib.com/2025/10/23/launching-liberty-how-america-built-the-ships-that-won-the-war/
  24. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/318605
  25. https://www.abc27.com/digital-originals/sept-27-1941-the-first-liberty-ships/
  26. https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/museums/nmusn/explore/photography/wwii/wwii-atlantic/battle-of-the-atlantic/merchant-ships/liberty/lc-lot-3452-8.html
  27. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/h/henry-j--kaiser--t-ao-187-.html
  28. https://www.nps.gov/rori/learn/historyculture/historic-richmond-shipyards.htm
  29. https://veteransbreakfastclub.org/history-of-wwii-liberty-ships/
  30. https://warontherocks.com/2020/04/wartime-lessons-for-industrial-mobilization-in-a-time-of-pandemic/
  31. https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/7/2/20
  32. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA536739.pdf
  33. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/bls/bls_0824_1945.pdf
  34. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4088&context=ilj
  35. https://www.nytimes.com/1945/05/24/archives/war-ship-workers-made-draftfree-navys-need-for-skilled-men-in.html
  36. https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/Admin-Hist/USN-Admin/USN-Admin-21.html
  37. https://wi101.wisc.edu/women-in-shipbuilding-during-world-war-ii/
  38. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1945/september/employment-women-navy-yards
  39. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780295805801-012/html
  40. https://www.ssjohnwbrown.org/the-ships
  41. https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/publications/company-information/workhorse-of-the-fleet-2019.pdf
  42. https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/butowsky1/jeremiahobrien.htm
  43. http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/L/i/Liberty_class.htm
  44. https://www.thoughtco.com/the-liberty-ship-program-2361030
  45. https://www.nps.gov/rori/learn/historyculture/ships-from-the-home-front.htm
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/liberty-ship
  47. https://www.construction-physics.com/p/lessons-from-shipbuilding-productivity
  48. https://www.goldenarrowresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/History-of-WWII-Merchant-Marines.pdf
  49. http://www.mastermariners.org.au/stories-from-the-past/2941-victory-ships
  50. https://www.maritime.dot.gov/multimedia/victory-ship
  51. http://www.usmm.org/tankers.html
  52. https://tags-ship.com/Victory_Ships/Victory_Ship_Conversions/Victory_Conversions_NEW.html
  53. https://surveyship.blogspot.com/2015/09/liberty-ship-or-victory-ship.html
  54. https://www.nps.gov/articles/s-s-scotts-bluff-forgotten-contributor.htm
  55. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-american-economy-during-world-war-ii/
  56. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/current-doctrine-submarines-usf-25-a.html
  57. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1947/june/german-submarine-war
  58. https://www.fdrlibrary.org/lend-lease
  59. https://johndclare.net/America10.htm
  60. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/23588/mcnair50.pdf
  61. https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/p/henry-kaiser-wartime-producer-and
  62. https://www.history.com/articles/post-world-war-ii-boom-economy
  63. https://www.shippai.org/fkd/en/hfen/HB1011020.pdf
  64. https://www.usdeadlyevents.com/1943-nov-24-25-storm-freighter-john-p-gaines-breaks-up-40m-s-of-cherikoff-is-ak-11/
  65. https://www.marinersmuseum.org/2021/01/brittle-fracture-when-ships-split-in-two/
  66. http://www.shipstructure.org/pdf/80.pdf
  67. https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235096183-liberty-ship-cracks-and-lifetime/
  68. https://www.marinelink.com/news/ducklings-steaming363512
  69. https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/henry-j-kaiser-and-the-liberty-ships/
  70. https://www.fmc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/REPORT_TO_CONGRESS_1946.pdf
  71. https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac//document.php?id=cqal46-1410970
  72. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2349765
  73. https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-09/Transportation%2520Emergency%2520Response%2520Factsheet%25204%2520-%2520Maritime%2520Public.pdf
  74. https://www.marinelog.com/views/op-ed-the-degradation-and-recovery-of-u-s-shipbuilding/
  75. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2025/february/next-great-era-us-shipbuilding
  76. https://www.hudson.org/national-security-defense/closing-shipbuilding-gap-lessons-henry-kaiser-part-i-arthur-herman
  77. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA316780.pdf
  78. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1964/november/our-nations-shipyards
  79. https://enotrans.org/article/decline-u-s-shipbuilding-industry-cautionary-tale-foreign-subsidies-destroying-u-s-jobs/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.