CHAPTER VII Special Types of Vessels Various ships and craft were acquired or converted "by the U. S. Army for the performance of special functions, and their procurement and oper- ations cannot be clearly understood apart from these functions. Such ships and craft form six main groups: (l) refrigerated vessels, (2) oil- carrying vessels, (3) hospital ships, (4) amphibian craft and amphibian vehicles, (5) landing craft, and (6) special fleets operated by the Signal Corps, the Air Corps, and other organizations. Refrigerated Vessels In most of the Southwest Pacific Area, and particularly in New Guinea and the Philippines, the humid heat made it impossible to transport fresh foods without refrigeration. During the first few months of the war, when most of the U. S. troops in the area were being staged in Australia, they were provided with fresh meats, fruits, vegetables, and other perishable subsistence procured locally; bat as soon as bases were established in the islands, which produced almost no subsistence except coconuts and fish, the problem of moving perishables from Australia and New Zealand became a matter of concern. In 1942 the number of refrigerated vessels available to the Army throughout the world was described by General Gross, Chief of Transpor- tation, as "extremely limited." Since provisions were obtained locally in Australia and New Zealand it was not feasible to dispatch refrigerated ships to SWPA, and the only refrigerated space normally available on ves- sels in transpacific service was the ship's icebox, which could carry only - 394 -
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CHAPTER VII
Special Types of Vessels
Various ships and craft were acquired or converted "by the U. S. Army
for the performance of special functions, and their procurement and oper
ations cannot be clearly understood apart from these functions. Such
ships and craft form six main groups: (l) refrigerated vessels, (2) oil-
carrying vessels, (3) hospital ships, (4) amphibian craft and amphibian
vehicles, (5) landing craft, and (6) special fleets operated by the Signal
Corps, the Air Corps, and other organizations.
Refrigerated Vessels
In most of the Southwest Pacific Area, and particularly in New Guinea
and the Philippines, the humid heat made it impossible to transport fresh
foods without refrigeration. During the first few months of the war, when
most of the U. S. troops in the area were being staged in Australia, they
were provided with fresh meats, fruits, vegetables, and other perishable
subsistence procured locally; bat as soon as bases were established in
the islands, which produced almost no subsistence except coconuts and fish,
the problem of moving perishables from Australia and New Zealand became
a matter of concern.
In 1942 the number of refrigerated vessels available to the Army
throughout the world was described by General Gross, Chief of Transpor
tation, as "extremely limited." Since provisions were obtained locally
in Australia and New Zealand it was not feasible to dispatch refrigerated
ships to SWPA, and the only refrigerated space normally available on ves
sels in transpacific service was the ship's icebox, which could carry only
- 394
enough supplies for the crew. Isolated bases could therefore expect few
deliveries of perishables. General Gross recommended on 10 July 1942
"that plans be made to supplement the 'B1 ration with vitamin pills as
required to assure the continued health of the troops stationed at these
bases. "•*•
The theater converted or partly converted a number of barges and
KPM vessels to reefers (refrigerated vessels), but these provided inade
quate refrigerated space to give more than occasional relief from a diet
of canned rations and vitamin pills. To serve the needs of rapidly in
creasing U. S. forces in New Guinea the theater requisitioned refrigerated
vessels for the local fleet. v.rhen the first of the Lakers, the City of
Port Worth, arrived in Australia on 12 March 1943, the Chief of Transpor
tation, USA5TE, wrote that "the refrigeration you installed is an answer
to one of our serious problems and when we get them all, we shall be able
to maintain a refrigerated service to New Guinea. ... Any more ships in
this class and type that you can pass along to me will be like manna from
heaven." Twenty-one of these vessels arrived before the end of 1943, and
the twenty-ninth and last was delivered in May 1944.
Long before that date, however, it was obvious that additional re
frigerated space must be found, not only for transportation but for stor
age. In May 1943 the refrigeration in forward zones was described as
"sadly lacking," and a suggested solution was tc construct refrigerated
barges "to be used solely as floating transient warehouses in water ad
jacent to garrisons or forward combat units"; refrigerated food would be
issued dally from these barges to the troops on shore. In February 1944
the theater presented a requirement for 1,008 portable refrigeration units
- 395
of 26^ cubic feet and 500 of 125 cubic feet. In the same month the Vice-
Chief of ITaval Operations, in reply to inquire from the Chief of Transpor
tation, announced that no refrigerated ships of the Itfavy were available
for transfer to the Southwest Pacific from other areas and that none of
the refrigerated ships allocated to the Pacific Fleet could be withdrawn
without replacement. At the same time G-eneral MacArthur reported that
the "uncertain Australian delivery situation" obliged him to depend on
the United States for his requirements. It became clear that the Chief
of Transportation must take prompt action to meet the needs already exist
ing and those which would develop with intensified operations later in 1944.
On 13 February 1944 G-eneral MacArthur reported that nondelivery of
refrigerated barges and of mobile and semifixed refrigerated equipment,
from both Australian and United States construction, had brought about "a
very unsatisfactory situation." He had already requisitioned 50 knock
down 104-foot refrigerated barges for making deliveries to outlying sup
ply points, and he desired that each of 5 202-foot barges which were
available be fitted with 50,000 cubic feet of reefer space to be used
chiefly for port storage at new bases. G-eneral Somervell replied on 18
March 1944 that approval had been given for supplying the theater with
the 50 refrigerated barges requested (about 1,000,000 cubic feet of reefer
space), the 5 large storage barges (250,000 cubic feet), and refrigeration
equipment for 25 Australian barges (500,000 cubic feet), making a total
of 1,750,000 cubic feet. The barges from the United States were delivered
considerably later; 46 of the 104-foot barges (design 348-A) arrived in
the theater between 20 August 1944 and 1 March 1945 (the remaining four
being canceled), and the 5 large barges (210-root, design 230) arrived
- 396
"between 20 November and 27 December 1944.4
On 2 April 1944 General MacArthur presented an estimate of his reefer
needs through June 1945. He predicted that 307,139 cubic feet of refriger
ated cargo would require movement from Australian ports northward during
each month of this period. Since most ships operating between Australia
and New Guinea had a turnaround in excess of 30 days and since about 20
percent were under repair at al l times, he estimated that movement of this
cargo would require 1,452,841 cubic feet of reefer space per month in 1944
and, because of lengthened turnaround in projected Philippine operations,
about 25 percent more per month during the first half of 1945. The reefer
space actually available, "based on absolute present ship turn around and
percentage laid up for repair,11 was 419,007 cubic feet. G-eneral MacArthur
awaited 200 Cl-H-AYls (requisition for 100 approved 29 December 1943),
each with 12,000 cubic feet of reefer space, but pending their delivery
he required reefer space from other sources. On 4 May 1944 G-eneral Mac-
Arthur requested that four of the Cl-M-AVls be refrigerated to provide
60,000 to 70,000 cubic feet each. Cn 4 July 1944 he complained that the
monthly capacity of the reefer ships available to him was only 280,000
cubic feet, providing only 9 issues of fresh provisions per month. To
provide 21 issues per month would require 990,000 cubic feet of reefer
space. He urged that every effort be made to expedite delivery of the
ships requested on 4 Kay, and that additional reefers be immediately
assigned to the theater for present use.
In response to this request the Turrialba, with about 160,000 cubic
feet of reefer space, was assigned in September to sail from San Francisco
with a full cargo of perishables. On 28 October 1944 the ^ater Division,
- 397
OCT. proposed that the Contessa. the Cefalu. the British Columbia Express,
and the Panama Express, in the permanent local fleet, be reconverted to
fully refrigerated vessels. Before the war they had been employed in the
fruit trade, and when they were converted in the theater to carry troops
their refrigeration machinery had been left intact. On 2 November Gen
eral MacArthur approved reconversion of the Contessa and the Oefalu. which
would increase their reefer space from 82,410 cubic feet to 327,886 cubic
feet. He reported on 28 November that reconversion of the British Columbia
Express and the Panama Express should be completed locally. On 7 December
he requested permission to send the Cefalu and the Contessa to San Fran
cisco, where the work required could be accomplished in 4 weeks. In Aus
tralia the same work would require at least 16 weeks. "Seven Christmas
holidays will be observed "by labor in Australia regardless of work to be
accomplished plus fact that labor is stretching all work to longest period
possible on every job they perfect." The request was granted on 18 Decem
ber 1944, but work on the Contessa was still in progress on 30 March 1945,
and in June 1945, after the reconversion of the Contessa had been completed,
it was planned to dispatch the Cefalu to San Francisco about 15 July 1945,^
On 25 August 1944, before any of these measures had taken effect,
the theater complained that "Heefer ships and barges are critically short
at this time and always have been. Our troops employed in combat opera
tions have without exception had to go for long periods without fresh
meats and other perishable subsistence, in some instances in excess of
six weeks." On 20 September 1944 General MacArthur requested the assign
ment of sufficient reefer shipping to assure delivery of 300,000 cubic
feet of refrigerated subsistence per month to forward bases. Shore reefer
- S98
facilities were available to effect speedy discharge. He announced that
he was about to requisition perishable items from the United States to
supplement the no longer adequate supply from Australia. On 23 September
General Somervell announced an emergency plan for meeting the stated re
quirements temporarily. British-controlled vessels en route from England
to Australia would be diverted to New York, load Army refrigerated cargo
there, discharge the cargo in New Guinea, proceed to Australia, and pick
up 1,250 tons of boneless beef (to be released by General MacArthur as
payment for the space taken by Army cargo in the New York - New Guinea
run) at ]Fremantle for discharge at Calcutta. On 5 October the theater
replied that direct supply from the United States was desired not for New
Guinea (as ASF had assumed) but only for the Philippines, and that no
shipping was available to move United States cargo from New Guinea to the
Philippines. The theater requested 8,135 weight tons of refrigerated
cargo from the United States for direct discharge in the Philippines dur
ing November and 9,920 weight tons during December.'
On 12 October 1944 the Chief of the Water Division, OCT, in a memo
randum for the Refrigerated Vessel Subcommittee of the Joint Military
Transportation Committee, reviewed this correspondence and pointed out
that the British Ministry of War Transport insisted that discharge be
prompt, that it be made in New Guinea, and that compensation be made for
lengthening the time normally required for delivering Australian meats
in Great Britain. Host reefers in the Pacific were in use by the Navy.
The Chief of the Water Division suspected that "Southwest Pacific is
thinking in terms of using whatever ships are dispatched to that theater
v/ith the perishable requisition as floating warehouses. Vith the world
- 399
wide shortage of reefers, this could hardly "be done. ... The British
even if they could "be persuaded to dispatch a refrigerated vessel to that
destination would hardly agree to permit it to remain as a floating stor
age. Any such action would mean that the requirements of the British
Isles for meats from Australia could not be made." The Refrigerated Ves
sel Subcommittee decided on 26 October that no ships were available for
direct dispatch to New Guinea. The Subcommittee observed that some of
the available meats in Australia were being exported to the United King
dom, that refrigerated vessels were loading mutton and lamb in New Zealand
for a 12,000-mile voyage to the United Kingdom, and that diversion of New
Zealand meats for consumption in New Guinea would release reefers for ser
vice elsewhere.®
The subject was further studied by the Joint Logistics Committee of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 27 October. On 2 November 1944 the Planning
Division, ASF, notified General MacArthur of the Committee's decision:
(l) that the steamer Clan McDonald would load at New York on 20 November
200,000 cubic feet of perishables including 1,250 tons of boneless beef
for .lev; Guinea discharge, (2) that no reefers were available for subse
quent direct shipment from the United States to Hew Guinea, (3) that
diversion of British ships to areas north of Australia could not be con
sidered before the "world reefer situation1' improved, and (4) that the
only solution of the problem was shipment from the east coast on British
ships (some of 350,000 cubic feet capacity) to Australia, from which the
theater vould hr've to provide its own transportation to forward areas.
On 15 November 1944 General MacArthur replied that the theater had only
620,000 cubic feet of reefer shipping, including 120,000 cubic feet
- 400
normally under repair; that normal turnaround time to the Philippines
would be 60 days; that vessels of 350,000 cubic feet could not be accoat
modated in forward areas; and that the policy announced on 2 November
would confine the forward areas to four issues of perishables per month.
After further correspondence the Army abandoned its plans to make use of
British reefers through reciprocal aid. British vessels on which the
Army had relied had appeared in port a month or more late, or not at all;
no firm schedules could be based on WSA-BMWT agreements; and the Army (as
informally stated on 3 January 1945) "declined to use mythical space."9
It was foreseen in 1943 that with the arrival of sufficient Cl-M-AVls
and reefer barges in SWPA the reefer problem would be more or less solved;
but the unexpectedly long delay in delivery of this equipment produced
unanticipated shortages of reefer space in 1944. Efforts to obtain tempo
rary reefer space, pending the arrival of the promised equipment, culmi
nated in the abortive plan to divert British-controlled vessels; and the
number of issues of perishables per month to forward areas declined from
nine in July to four in November, during the period of maximum concentra
tion in New Guinea and the beginning of the Philippine campaign. Then,
as in the middle of 1942, the forces in New Guinea, the most unhealthful
and uncomfortable part of the Southwest Pacific Area, lived on canned
rations and vitamin pills. As late as 27 September 1944 the theater was
informed that 21 C1-M-AV1 vessels would be delivered in 1944 and 79 more
by July 1945. Of these, 95 would be equipped with 10,000 cubic feet of
reefer space each and 5 with 105,000 cubic feet each, making a total of
1,475,000 cubic feet. Reefer barges had began to arrive in August 1944,
but the first two Cl-M-AVls, the Glove Hitch and the Timber Hitch, were
- 401
delayed for unexplained reasons till February 1945.
Others followed, and after V-E Day ample reefer space became gradually
available. In August 1945 A3VESPAC had about 900,000 cubic feet of float
ing reefer space, and in September this total increased to about 1,700,000
cubic feet with the assignment of the Maya (200,000 cubic feet), the
Argentinean Reefer (175,000 cubic feet), the Crown Reefer (100,000 cubic
feet), and other arrivals. Considerably after V-J Day there arrived in
the theater three barges of a new type — BEL (Barge, Refrigerated, Large).
Each was 265 feet long, with 8 holds storing the equivalent of 64 carloads
of frozen meats, two deck compartments with a capacity of 500 measurement
tons of fresh vegetables, cheese, eggs, and other perishables, an ice
plant producing 5 tons a day, and a unit making 10 gallons of ice cream
every 7 minutes. It seemed unfortunate that the delivery of adequate
refrigerated equipment had been delayed until the most urgent need for
it was past.
Tankers and Oil Barges
Special floating equipment for carrying oil — that is, oil barges
and tankers — was not greatly needed by the Army in SWPA for intrathea
ter use before 1943. American oil was delivered either in drums, which
required no special equipment, or in bulk. Bulk oil was delivered to
main Australian ports in which Navy and WSA tankers could discharge their
liquid cargo at docks into shore storage facilities. Oil in Australia
was distributed by trucks or tank cars to outlying installations. The
undeveloped island ports north of Australia had at first no facilities
for bulk storage and were therefore supplied with oil in drums. During
- 402
1943 these ports began to construct such facilities, but on a limited
scale. Large and permanent facilities were not desired, since the ports
would be decreasingly used after the center of combat moved to the Phil
ippines. In some ports the facilities could not be reached by large
tankers for direct discharge; in others the facilities were so small that
a large tanker could completely discharge its cargo only by visiting more
than one port. These conditions persisted through the New Guinea period
of the war and were repeated in the Philippines until permanent facilities
were established after the reoccupation of Manila. Most bulk petroleum
therefore continued to be discharged in Australia for transshipment to
forward areas; and a need developed for small tankers, which did not re
quire deep-water ports and did not carry more than one port required, and
for oil barges, which could be carried as cargo in tows from Australia and
could deliver oil in very shallow ports or could be used to discharge tank
ers that could not enter such ports. Even after the reoccupation of Manila
such equipment was needed for delivering bulk oil from Manila to outlying
ports.
Of the oil barges the first were four 80-foot barges (SSS-H) con
structed in Australia before 30 June 1943. By 23 August 1944 USASOS had
received 13 85-foot bulk oil steel barges (SSS-G) from the same source,
and 37 more were delivered later. Prom the United States came 50 102
propelled barges (to handle airplanes, automobiles, and other "long,
large, and bulky packages"), 2 crawler cranes (1 20-ton and 1 15-ton), 3
5-ton truck cranes with oversize tires and 4-wheel drive, 1 fueling tank
truck and greasing outfit, 1 30-foot trailer and unit, and other equip
ment. It was believed that a DTJKW outfit transporting cargo from a ves
sel anchored one mile from shore to a dump three miles inland could make
the round trip with four tons in one hour, ^or loading and unloading,
the proposed amphibian cargo landing company would require support by
stevedores, either included in the company or organized as two separate
companies. Parry and Lehnau advocated the use of DUKtfs, in conjunction
- 414
with standardized interisland transports and standardized refrigerated
"barges, for the following reasons:
The South Sea Islands have like characteristics from a transportation viewpoint. They are invariably protected by an encircling coral reef, with "breaks in the reef through which vessels may enter, and "by virtue of these protecting coral reefs usually relatively smooth water will be found at anchorages adjacent to the beaches. The islands will differ as to the slope of the beach and the distance from the beach where vessels of varying sizes may anchor in safety, tfe know, therefore, that as the campaign develops and we move from island to island, that we shall always be confronted with the problem of taking supplies ashore from an anchored ship over a sandy coral beach, where no facilities of any kind exist. It can be assumed that where facilities do exist they probably will be destroyed in the path of our advance. Therefore, we must be prepared with a substantial amount of mobile equipment so designed as to be capable of unloading and landing every type of material that combat forces will require. The building of docks is objectionable because it takes too long, and it adds to our water transportation burden to have to transport materials for the construction of the docks. The same generally is true with respect to building smaller docks for barges or lighters. Besides the objection noted, permanent developments are undesirable because the beachhead which might be important from a supply angle at one time, would probably be useless and abandoned shortly thereafter as the campaign progresses. Of course the island campaigns must be based upon the nearest adjacent large Port. For example, the northern ports of Australia are logically the water bases for the New Guinea campaign and for islands to the north and west, just as Noumea and Espiritu Santo are logically the bases for the campaign in the Solomons, Gilberts, Russells, etc. Therefore, any comprehensive transportation plan must envisage the movement of materials and supplies from the nearest large water base to the advanced combat zones as quickly, safely, and with a minimum of rehandling, as possible.2^
In June 1943, according to a newspaper notice, the natives of New
Guinea were still frightened by the "new and terrible monster of war"
that had appeared among them. It rolled along forest roads, moved with
out hesitation over logs and through mud, changed easily from land to
sea or sea to land operation, could carry troops with full equipment,
ammunition, and rations, and could pick up cargoes in scattered places,
cross a river or a bay, and discharge without the two handlings that
otherwise would have been unavoidable. This notice was somewhat opti
mistic, for a DUZV, like other wheeled vehicles, could sink in mud or
- 415
sand and be stopped by a sufficiently large obstacle; but with its six-
wheel drive it could move under various conditions where ordinary trucks
were powerless. As late as October 1943, however, the use of DUKV/s in the
theater was still "in an experimental stage." Tactical use of the DUKVT
in assault landings was contemplated, and "the primary use of the Dukw,
i.e. to speed up the turn-around of ships," was kept constantly in mind;
but information as to performance was not yet available. Maintenance was
expensive. General Somervell reported from SWPA that shipment of DUKV/s
to the theater in advance of TC companies had resulted in poor operation
and maintenance "by troops assigned indiscriminately to the operation with
consequent loss of faith in their capacity to unload ships." He believed
that arrival of amphibian truck companies, specially trained in operating
DUKWs, would "give confidence in the value of this equipment." His pre
diction was evidently correct. Two amphibian truck companies (the 464th
and 465th) arrived in Hew Guinea in September 1943, and eventually at
?7least forty-six others served in the theater.
Landing Ships and Landing Craft
The procurement of landing ships and landing craft for Army use was
originally a responsibility of the Chief of Transportation, but on 10
September 1942, by decision of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was transferred
to the Navy. On one occasion OCT began to fill a requisition of 7 Decem
ber 1942 from SWPA for 38 "truck lighters" (design 289, BTL 826-831, 833
834, 839-852, 873-886), which were dispatched from San Francisco in Feb
ruary 1944; but these were among 207 Army hulls that had been taken over
by the Navy and completed as LCM(3)s. With this exception the Transpor
- 416
tation Corps was concerned with landing ships and landing craft mainly as
bulky cargo to be delivered. They were specialized combat vessels, de
signed for use in landings on hostile shores and not mainly for transpor
tation of men and cargo between points within a zone of communication.28
The la t ter use, however, became increasingly prominent in 1944 and later.
Their main use in SWPA was by the Navy Amphibian Force and by the
three Engineer amphibian brigades (the 2d, 3d, and 4th). Each brigade
required 540 LCV(P)s, 503 LCM(3)s, and 40 LCCs or LCS(S)s. The LCV(P)
— landing craft, vehicle, personnel — was a 36-foot ramped boat with a
crew of 3, a speed of 9 knots, and a capacity of 36 troops, 8,100 pounds
of general cargo, or 1 6,000-pound vehicle; i t was designed chiefly for
landing troops on beaches. The LCM(3) — landing craft, mechanized
(mark 3) — was a 50-foot ramped boat with a crew of 4, a speed of from
9 to 11 knots, and a capacity of 60 troops, 60,000 pounds of cargo, or
1 30-ton tank; i t was designed chiefly for beaching tanks or motor vehi
cles. (Later the LCM(6) was produced, with 6 feet of added length and a
knot of added speed.) The LCC — landing craft, control — was a 56-foot
boat with a crew of 14 and a speed of 13-J- knots, designed as "lead-in
navigational craft for landing craft" and for traffic control and pre
liminary hydrographic surveys; i t was not intended for beaching. The
LCS(S) — landing craft, support (small) — was a wooden boat 36' 8" long,
with a crew of 6 and a speed of 12 knots, able to carry 3 or 4 men besides
crew and gunners and designed Mto render close supporting automatic and
rocket f ire to assault waves." These craft, intended for ship-to-shore
operations, were capable of "shore-to-shore" operations over considerable
distances. Each brigade could land one Engineer triangular division with
- 417
?9its equipment and artillery.
By 23 July 1943 500 LCV(P)s of the 1,620 required by the three bri
gades for 1943 had been delivered and 200 were en route; and 120 LCM(3)s
of the 1,509 required had been dispatched for the theater. The LCV(P)s
were shipped knocked down and were assembled by the 411th Base Shop Bat
talion at Cairns, Australia. The LCM(3)s required deck space that was
much needed by other priority cargo, but experiments were in progress to
30ship them in sections, capable of stowage under deck.
Various alterations in the requirements of Engineer brigades were
made during 1943 and 1944. In September 1943 the Quebec Conference allo
cated 540 LCV(P)s and 405 LCM(3)s for each of the three brigades for
1944. On 6 May 1943 General MacArthur had requested the shipment of
LCTs in iectionalized form as added equipment; the request was still
under st'xLy in September. The LOT — landing craft, tank — was produced
in several models, all ramped, some of British manufacture. The two
American models were the LCT(5) — length 117'6", speed 8 knots, range
or 250 tons of general cargo; and the LCT(6) — length 120'4", speed 7
knots, range 700 miles, crew 1 officer and 11 enlisted men, capacity as
for LCT(5). The LCCs originally called for were not available; on 30
September 1943 General MacArthur accepted 35 45-foot Navy picket boats
and 5 63-foot crash boats for each brigade as an equivalent. On 16
November 1943 the requirement for command and navigation boats was stated
as 24 63-foot crash boats or equivalent, 23 picket boats, and 28 LCS(S)s
for each brip^de. The requirement for LCM(3)s was raised from 1,509 to
2,109 on 29 November 1943 and to 2,534 on 28 February 1944. In the mean
- 418
time, on 6 October 1943, General MacArthur reported that the LCV(P), be
cause of Mits inability to operate over long exposed water routes invar
iably encountered and its small pay load," was not suited for extensive
use in SVfPA; and he reduced his requirement from 1,620 to 1,000, the
eliminated 620 to be replaced by LCTs (63 LCTs for each 270 LCV(P)s) or
by LCMs (4 LCMs for each LCT not furnished). On 28 January 1944 General
MacArthur reported that the LCS(S) was too lightly armored to serve
effectively "in restricted waters to locate and destroy enemy barges and
isolated enemy groups ashore"; and he requested the substitution of LCS(L)s.
These craft — landing craft, support (large) — were 158'5" long, with
a crew of 5 officers and 68 enlisted men, and were designed "to provide
fire support for landing operations and to intercept and destroy inter
island barge traffic." Most of these requested changes were made in the
course of 1944.31
The equipment and the operations of the Engineer special brigades
pertained entirely to Army transportation but not, in theory, to the part
of Army transportation that was controlled by the Chief Transportation
Officer, XJSASOS. In practice, however, various items of Engineer special
brigade equipment were used by the TC. The theater admitted in October
1943 that LCMs were assigned for lightering of cargo when other cargo-
handling equipment was not available. On 6 October 1943 General MacAr
thur requested 24 LCTs "for USASOS and other Army requirements" (besides
the LCTs requested for the three brigades). On 28 February 1944 he re
quested 212 LCMs for USASOS, of which 12 were for the 4 Engineer ports
construction and repair groups in or committed to the theater and 200
were for the Transportation Corps for use by Q^ boat companies and by
- 419
projected harbor-craft companies. Landing craft were not assigned as
organic equipment in the tables of equipment of such TC organizations,
and no clear account is found of the Engineer equipment actually used
by the Transportation Corps in New Guinea and the Philippines; but TO
organizations in island ports appear to have obtained quantities of such
32equipment for temporary use.
On 7 April 1945 the Joint Chiefs of Staff, observing that lack of
ships had "immobilized" supplies and troops in the South Pacific and in
rear areas of the Southwest Pacific, directed those areas to "examine
their requirements for assault shipping in the light of current opera
tional directives to the end that such as can be spared without prejudice
to current and projected operations will be made available to assist in
redeploying Troops across the Pacific and in moving forward Troops and
supplies from the South Pacific and the Rear Areas of the Southwest Pac
ific." General MaArthur replied on 11 April that assault ships and craft
were being used "to the fullest extent possible for movement of personnel
and cargo from rear to combat areas," and that later he might be able to
use more LSTs and LSMs "for logistic purposes." These were comparatively
large oceangoing vessels, the LSM (landing ship, medium) being 2031 6"
long and the LST (landing ship, tank) 328• long. Both were designed for
landing waterproofed tanks or vehicles over a ramp but could be used for
considerable distances as personnel carriers. General MacArthur reported
further on 12 April that 20 LSTs had been working for some time as a task
group "to displace forward heavy equipment and troops," that it would be
augmented with other LSTs and with LSMs as they were released from oper
ations, that LCTs not required at rear ports for loading and unloading
- 420
large ships were being "displaced forward to perform similar duties in
Philippine ports," and that LCIs (landing craft, infantry, 158' 5fn long,
with accommodations to carry 6 officers and 182 enlisted men for 48 hours)
not committed to operations were in use for personnel (such as replace
ments) having little or no equipment.33
With. V-J Day all assault vessels "became surplus except as noncombat
use for them might "be found. On 20 November 1945 General MacArthur re
quested instructions as to disposition of assault vessels, particularly
LCMs and LCV(P)s. He was informed in reply that the Navy had title to
all such vessels, that a number (not yet determined) of LCM(6)s and LCV(P)s
would be needed for training Engineers in Zone of Interior, and that ves
sels surplus to Army needs in the theater should be turned over to the
local Navy commander for disposal as directed by the Bureau of Ships,
Navy Department. Use was found for some of the vessels as cargo and per
sonnel carriers in the theater. On 9 January 1946 AWESPAC controlled 17
LCV(P)s and 454 LCMs. In March 1946 AWESPAC requested assignment of 10
LCIs; in June the Navy transferred 9 LCTs and 2 LCIs to the Army, which
was assembling crews for "amphibious" vessels received from the Navy; and
plans were made in September 1946 for an "AFWESPAC Permanent Fleet" of 65
vessels, of which 57 would be landing ships and craft (44 LCTs, 11 LSTs,
and 2 LCIs).34
Special Fleets
As repeatedly mentioned, many Army vessels in SWPA were operated by
organizations other than the Transportation Corps. In a sense the hospi
tal ships could be described as the fleet of the Medical Corps. Probably
889954 0—50 29
the largest fleet of the kind was operated by the Air Corps, consisting
of retrievers, repair ships, a number of FS vessels, and other ships and
craft. Quantities of amphibian vehicles and craft and of landing craft
were operated by Engineer special brigades. Certain refrigerated barges,
FS vessels, and other vessels were operated by the Quartermaster Corps.
Available information concerning these and other special fleets is too
fragmentary and vague to be worth collecting.
A little more can be learned about the Signal Corps fleet, manned
by detachments known eventually as mobile and seaborne communications
units. Small schooners and oceangoing lighters were equipped with radio
equipment to provide communications during assault and while fixed facil
ities were being installed ashore, and for use as stand-by or emergency
facilities, A GHQ, Seaborne Communications Fleet was established early in
1944, though not officially authorized before January 1945, The Transpor
tation Corps provided crews for the vessels of this fleet; the Signal
Corps directed where and when the vessels would move. The part of the
fleet that served in the Leyte invasion included the PCBs (Patrol Craft
Escorts (Rescue)) 848, 849, and 850, the FP-47, and the Apache. The
Apache was outfitted as a broadcast ship. The FP-47, formerly equipped
for Chemical Warfare operation, was converted as a press ship for war
correspondents. Both vessels served at Leyte, Lingayen Gulf, and Manila,
One of the Cl-M-AVls, the Spindle Eye, was converted to a "news trans
mission ship." On 22 May 1945 General MacArthur requested the assignment
of a vessel for the use of war correspondents, with a press room, broad
casting facilities, quarters for correspondents, censors1 offices, and
capacity for carrying a number of quarter-ton vehicles. ASF suggested
- 422
that either a Baltic coaster or a C1-M-AV1 might "be converted for such
use; "but General MacArthur replied that neither would be of shallow enough
draft to come close to shore, and recommended the conversion of an LST,
the signal equipment to "be procured and installed by the Chief Signal Of
ficer, ASF, in accordance with plans and specifications furnished "by SWPA.
Decision was made, however, to convert a C1-M-AV1. As finally equipped,
the vessel was described as a "radio city," with 5 radio transmitters
(one of 7,500 watts, 4 of 3,000 watts), broadcasting studios with the
newest dynamic microphones, 5 Presto precision turntables for disc record
ings, 2 film recorders, 108 new typewriters, and other equipment. The
crew included 35 Signal Corps technicians, 3 Navy radar men, and 45 mer
chant mariners, in addition to a basic ATS crew. Designed for use in re
porting the invasion of Japan, the Spindle Eye sailed from Seattle for
Tokyo 16 September 1945 and remained in service in the theater till April
1946.36
- 423
Notes on Chapter VII
1. Memo, CofTS SOS to Direc tor , Planning Div, SOS, 10 Jul 42, sub: Food Supply, Bobcat. In OCT HB f i l e , Ocean Transportation - Refr igerat ion.
2. L t r , CofT USAF3T3 (Brig Gen Thomas 3 . Wilson) to Chief, Water Div, OCT ASF, 29 Mar 43 . Notes in OCT KB f i l e , SWPA - Shipping.
3 . ( l ) Memo, Lt Cols Alfred W. Parry, J r . , and Rudolph C. Lehnau for Chief, Control Div, ASF, 21 May 43, sub: Transportation Plan for Paci f ic Theatres. In OCT KB f i l e , POA - Inspection Tr ips . (2) Memo, Director of Plans and Operations, ASF (Maj Gen LeRoy Lutes) , for Director of Mater ie l , ASF, 28 Feb 44, sub: Portable Type Refrigerat ion Uni t s . In ASF Planning Div, day f i l e , SWPA. (3) Memo, Vice CNO (Adm F. J . Home) to CofT -AS t 18 Feb 44, sub: Refrigerated Ships for Southwest Paci f ic Theater. In OCT 565.4 SWPA. (4) Rad, CinC SWPA to CG ASF, 18 Feb 44, Onu-In 12942 (18 Feb 44 ) . Same f i l e .
4 . (1) Rad, CinC SWPA to CG ASF, 18 Feb 44, c i t ed in n. 3 (4 ) . (2) Rad, CG ASF to CinC SWPA, 18 Mar 44. In ASF Planning Div, day f i l e , SWPA.
5. (1) Rad, CinC SWPA to CG ASF, 2 Apr 44, Cm-In 1452 (3 Apr 44) . In OCT 563.5 SWPA. (2) Rad, same to same, 4 May 44, Cm-In 2798 (4 May 44) . In OCT 461.1 SWPA. (3) Rad, same to same, 4 Jul 44, Cm-In 2667 (4 Jul 44) . Same f i l e .
6. (1) Rad, CG ASF to CinC APPAC, 22 Sep 44, Cm-Out 35124. Same f i l e . (2) Rad, Chief, Water Div, OCT ASF (Col R. M. Hicks), to CinC SWPA, 28 Oct 44. In OCT 564 SWPA. (3) Rad, CinC SWPA to CG ASF, 2 Nov 44. Same f i l e . (4) Rad, same to same, 28 Nov 44. Same f i l e . (5) Rad, same to same, 7 Dec 44. Same f i l e . (6) Rad, Chief, Water Div, OCT ASF,to CG USASOS, 18 Dec 44. Same f i l e . (?) Rad, CG USASOS to CofT ASF, 30 Mar 45 . Same f i l e . (8) Rad, CinC SWPA to CG ASF, 23 Jun 45. Same f i l e . According to HTC Hq., Sep 1945, p . 7, the Contessa was again dispatched for San Francisco on 20 Sep 45; i t s ch i l l ed compartments did not maintain a suff i c i e n t l y low temperature for operations in the t r o p i c s .
7. (1) Memo, ACofS G-4 GHQ SWPA (Brig Gen L. J . Whitlock) for CofS GHQ SWPA, 28 Aug 44, sub: Logis t ic Estimate, Musketeer Operations. In ASF Planning Div f i l e , Musketeer Operations. (2) Rad, CinC SWPA.to CG ASF, 20 Sep 44, Cm-In 19529 (21 Sep 44) . In OCT 563.5 SWPA. (3) Rad, CG ASF to CinC SWPA, 23 Sep 44, Cm-Out 36436 (23 Sep 44 ) . Same f i l e . (4) Rad, CG USASOS to WD, 5 Oct 44, Cm-In 5041 (5 Oct 44) . Same f i l e .
8. ( l ) Memo, Chief, Water Div, OCT ASF (Col R. M. Hicks) , for Refrigerated Vessel Subcommittee, Jo in t Mili tary Transportation Committee, 12 Oct 44, sub: Shipment of Per ishables to ACCUMULATION. Same f i l e . (2) Memo, Chief, Ocean Traffic Br, Water Div, OCT ASF (Lt Col Arthur G. Syran), for Plans Div, ASF, 28 Oct 44, sub: Shipment of Per ishables to Southwest Pac i f ic Area. Same f i l e .
- 424
9. (1) Had, Planning Div ASF to CinC SWPA, 2 Nov 44, Cm-Out 56141 (2 Nov 44). Same f i l e . (2) Rad, CinC SWPA to CG.ASF, 15 Nov 44, Cm-In 14229 (15 NOT 44). Same f i l e . (3) Ltr, Chief, Ocean Traffic Br, Water Div, OCT ASP (Col Arthur G. Syran), to Maj Raymond E. Veith, Hq, Hampton Roads Port of Embarkation, 3 Jan 45. In OCT HB f i l e , Ocean Transportation - Refrigeration. According to HTC Hq, Jan 1945, p . 10, the Clan McDonald arrived in the theater 13 Jan 45 and was s t i l l discharging cargo at Hollandia at the end. of the month; reefer compartments on the Turrlalba. which was receiving cargo from the Clan McDonald, had "broken down.
10. ( l ) Memo, Director of Plans and Operations, ASF (Maj Gen LeRoy Lutes), for Deputy CofS GHQ, SWPA (Brig Gen R. J. Marshall), 27 Sep 44, sub: Supply Problems in Southwest Pacific Area. In ASF Planning Div, 12a day f i l e , SWPA. Also to be delivered by the end of 1944 were the 1,008 portable reefer units of 26f cubic feet and the 500 units of 125 cubic feet ordered nearly a year before. (2) 1st ind, Executive, Adm. Div, OCT ASF (J&t Col A. H. Harder), to CG AAF, 23 Sep 44, on an unidentified l t r . In OCT 565.4 SWPA. This l e t t e r announced that delivery of the Cl-M-AVls would begin in Oct 1944. Delay was attributed to "the cr i t ica l nature of e lect r ica l and refrigerator machinery." (3) Utilization of Vessels Employed by U. S. Army in the Supply of Theaters from United States, 16-31 Aug 44, prepared by Control Div, OCT ASF, 10 Sep 44. In OCT HB, organizat ional f i l e , Water Div - Vessel Utilization Kpt. This asserts that there existed in Aug 1944 "a c r i t i ca l shortage of reefer ships and other refrigerated cargo space to satisfy overall needs of a l l the theaters. . . . The problem cannot be alleviated, in the near future, by new construction or conversion, due to the scarcity of refrigerating equipment."
11. ( l ) HTC Hq, Aug 1945, p . 9; Sep 1945, p . 7. (2) "Make Mine Tutti-F r u t t i . " In Army Transportation Journal. Vol I , No. 2 (Mar 1945), p . 5.
12. App 37 . this volume.
13. ( l ) The Army's Cargo Fleet in World War I I , prepared by Harold Larson, Historical Unit, V/ater Div OCT ASF, May 1945, p . 121. (2) KTC Hq, Mar-Jun 1944, pp. 20-21. (3) Rad, CinC SWPA to CG ASF, 30 Jan 44, Cm-In 20179 (30 Jan 44). In OCT 565.4 SWPA.
14. ( l ) Rad (draf t ) , CofT ASF to CinC SWPA, 11 Nov 43, Cm-Out 4619 (12 Nov 43). In OCT 565.4 SWPA. (2) App _37_. this volume.
15. (1) Rad, CinC SWPA to CG ASF, 14 Feb 44, Cm-In 9747 (14 Feb 44). In OCT 565.4 SWPA. (2) Rad, same to same, 18 Jul 44, Cm-In 14830 (18 Jul 44). In OCT 561.1 SWPA.
16. Rad, same to same, 24 Jan 45, Cm-In 24878 (25 Jan 45). Same
f i l e .
17. Joint Army and Navy Supply and Shipping Conference, 1-6 May 45. Notes in OCT HB f i l e , SWPA - Shipping.
- 425
18. HTC HOL, Dec 1944, pp. 9-10; Jan 1945, p. 9.
19. (l) Ltr, Asst AG USAFIE to TAG, 24 Aug 43, sub: Evacuation of Psychotic Cases to United States. (2) Memo, Operations Br, AGO, to Surgeon General USA, 2 Sep 43, same sub. (3) Memo, Chief, Overseas Troop Br, Movements Div, OCT ASF (Lt Col Donald E. Farr), for Chief, Water Div, OCT ASF, 18 Sep 43, same sub. (4) 2d ind on same, Farr to TAG, 15 Oct 43. (5) Memo, Chief, Water Div, OCT ASF (Col H. M. Hicks), to Director of Allocations and Assignments, WSA, 7 Oct 43. (6) Ltr, U. S. Maritime Commission (H. L. Vickery) to OCT ASF, 23 Dec 43, sub: Hospital Spaces on Vessels Converted to Carry Troops. All in OCT 632 SWPA (clear file).
20. Ltr, CofT ASF to CinC SWPA, 29 Jan 44, sub: Hospital Ships. In OCT HB file, SWPA - Shipping.
21. (l) Had, CinC SWPA to CG ASF, 21 Jun 44, Cm-In 17321 (21 Jun 44). (2) Had, CG ASF to CinC SWPA, 29 Jun 44, Cm-Out 58030. (3) Had, same to same, 5 Jul 44, Cm-Out 60711. (4) Had, CNO to Com 7th Fit, 8 Oct 44, Cm-In 7679 (8 Oct 44). (5) Had, CG ASF to CinC SWPA, 9 Oct 44. All in OCT 565.4 SWPA. (6) Had, CG USASOS to WD, 3 Dec 44, Cm-In 3397 (4 Dec 44). In OCT 370.05 SWPA,
22. (l) Fact Sheet on U. S. Army Hospital Ship "Marigold," 1944, prepared by Office of Technical Information, OCT ASF. In OCT HB file, Ocean Transportation - Vessels - Hospital Ships - Marigold, (2) Table, office of origin not named, 16 Feb 45, sub: U. S. Army Hospital Ships. In OCT HB file, Ocean Transportation - Vessels - Hospital Ships. (3) HTC Hq., Apr 1945, p. 8; Jun 1945, p. 8; Aug 1945, p. 8. (4) Roland W. Charles, Troopships of World War II (Wash., copyright 1947), p. 344. (5) WD GO 75, 22 Jul 46.
23. (l) Had, CG ASF to CinC SWPA, 16 May 45, Cm-Out 83409. In OCT 565.4 SWPA. (2) Article in New York Times. 29 May 45, p. 2, dtd Washington, 28 May 45, sub: "Increase Capacity of Hospital Fleet." Clipping in OCT HB file, Ocean Transportation - Vessels - Hospital Ships. (3) HTC Hq, Feb 1945, pp. 10-11; Jun 1945, p. 8; Jul 1945, p. 8; Aug 1945, p. 8; Nov 1945, p. 13; Dec 1945, p. 11; Jan 1946, pp. 17-18; Feb 1946, p. 15; Mar 1946, p. 15; Apr 1946, p. 10. (4) Charles, op., cit,., pp. 332, 334-335, 337, 343, 346-347, 350.
24. (l) ONI 226 - Allied Landing Craft and Ships, 7 Apr 44, and Supplement 1, undtd. In OCT HB, Topical File - Navy. Includes photographs and diagrams. The LVT(3) and LVT(4) discharged by a stern ramp. ^2) Article in New York Times. 15 May 44, by Hanson W. Baldwin, sub: Our Amphibious Fleet. Clipping in OCT HB, Ocean Transportation - Vessels Landing Craft.
25. (1) Memo, Chief, Landing Craft Br, Planning Div, OCT ASF (Lt Cmdr G. B. Taylor), for ACofT for Operations, 5 Feb 43, sub: 2j Ton Dutatf. In OCT HB, V/ylie file, Amphibian Vehicles. (2) Memo, ACofT for Operations (Brig Gen Robert H. Wylie) for ACofT for Personnel and Trailing, 16 Mar 43,
- 426
* T ° n ^ k " 1 0 1 1 8ft 1 Trucks for SWPA. Same f i l e . (3) Ltr, CofT USABTE U3rig Gen Thomas B. Wilson) to ACofT for Operations, 20 May 43. In OCT HB f i l e , SWPA - Shipping. (4) Report on Status of Floating Equipment for Southwest Pac i f i c Theater, 10 Apr 44, prepared by Dist r ibut ion Sec, Stock Control Br, Requirements Div, OCT ASF. In Water Transport Service Div, Harbor Boat Sec, OCT. Omitted from l a t e r reports as not a TC item. Later f igures from other sources have not been found.
26. Memo, Lt Cols Alfred W. Parry, J r . , and Rudolph C. Lehnau for Chief, Control Div, ASF, 21 May 43, sub: Transportation Plan for Pacif ic Theaters . In OCT HB f i l e , POA - Inspection Trips .
27. ( l ) "New Yankee War Monsters S t i r New Guinea Natives," by Hal 01 F lahe r ty , copyrighted by Detroi t News and Chicago Daily News. 19 Jun 43, r ep r in t ed in A Report from the Front . By GMC Truck & Coach Div, General Motors Corp, Pont iac , Mich, undtd. In CCT HB, Wylie f i l e , Amphibian Vehic l e s . (2) Somervell quest ionnaire , question 202. (3) Memo, CG ASF for CofS ASF, 3 Oct 43.' In ASF Planning Div f i l e , Report of General Somerv e l l , SWPA. (4) App 4 1 , t h i s volume.
28. (1) Memo, ACofS OPD GSUSA (Maj Gen Thomas T. Handy) for G-3, G-4, CG- SOS, and CG AGF, 14 Sep 42, sub: Amphibious Craft, Recommendations and Supply of. In OCT HB, Topical F i l e - Navy - Landing Craft. I t developed from l a t e r correspondence that "amphibious craf t" included a l l ships and c r a f t designed for use in combat landing operations but did not include amphibious v e h i c l e s . (2) Float ing Equipment Sta tus , Southwest Pacif ic Area, 29 Feb 44, c i t ed in n. 25(4) . (3) Report of Army Small Boat Construct i o n , 1 Ju l 4 0 - 3 1 May 45, dtd 18 May 45. In OCT HB, Organizational F i le - Water Div - Small Boats.
29. (1) ONI 226, c i ted in n. 24(1). (2) Baldwin, Our Amphibious T l e e t , c i t ed in n. 24(2) . (3) Memo, Chief, Landing Craft Br, Planning Div, OCT ASF (Lt Ciadr G. E. Taylor) , for CofT ASF, 23 Jul 43 . In OCT HB, Gross f i l e , Landing Craft .
30. Memo, 23 Jul 43, c i ted in n. 29(3) .
3 1 . (1) Had, CofS USA to CinC SWPA, 17 Sep 43, Cm-Out 8936 (19 Sep 4 3 ) . (2) Had, same to same, 20 Sep 43, Cm-Out 9534 (21 Sep 43) . (3) Had, CinC SWPA to WD, 30 Sep 43, Cm-In 20832 (30 Sep 43) . (4) Rad, same to same, 14 Nov 43 , Cm-In 8584 (14 Nov 43) . (5) Rad, CofS USA to CinC SWPA, 16 Nov 43 , Cm-Out 7977 (20 Nov 43) . (6) Memo, AG ASF to CofT ASF, 24 Sep 43 , sub: Landing Craft for the Southwest Pacif ic Area. (7) Rad, CinC SWPA to V/D, 29 Nov 43 , Cm-In 17797 (29 Nov 43) . (8) Rad, same to same, 28 Teb 44, Cm-In 20110 (29 Feb 44) . (9) dad, same to same, 6 Oct 43, Cm-In 3498 (6 Oct 43 ) . (10) Rad, same to same, 28 Jan 44, Cm-In 18780 (28 Jan 44)• All in OCT 565.4 SWPA. ( l l ) ONI 226, c i ted in n. 24(1) .
32 (1) Somervell ques t ionnaire , question 196g. (2) Rad, CinC SWPA to WD,#6 Oct 43 , Cm-In 3498 (6 Oct 43) . In OCT 565.4 SWPA. (3) Rad, same to same, 28 Feb 44, Cm-In 20110 (29 Feb 44) . Same f i l e .
- 427
33. (1) Had, JCS to CinC SWPA and CinC POA, 7 Apr 45, Cm-In 7012 (8 Apr 45). In OCT H3, v/ylie file, Radios - Ships for Pacific Theaters. (2) Had, CinC SWPA to COMINCH, 11 Apr 45, Cm-In 15364 (17 Apr 45). Same file. (3) Had, CinC SWPA to WD, 12 Apr 45, Cm-In 10802 (12 Apr 45). In OCT 560 SWPA. (4) ONI 226, cited in n. 24(1).
34. (1) Rad, CinC AFPAC to CG ASF, 20 Nov 45, Cm-In 60924 (20 Nov 45). (2) Rad (draft), Chief, Requirements & Distribution Div, OCT ASF (lit Col James M. Clow), to CinC AFPAC, 21 Nov 45. (3) Rad, CG AFWESPAC to CG ASP, 9 Jan 46, Cm-In 1934 (10 Jan 46). All in OCT 560 SWPA. (4) HTC Hq, Mar 1346, pp. 6-7, 15, 23; Jun 1946, p. 15; Sep 1946, p. 2.
35. (1) "Manila and the Capitulation," by Lt Col D. V. Eddy, SC. In Signals: Journal of the Army Signal Association. Vol I, No. 5 (May-Jun 1947), pp. 42-47. (2) Notes of interview with Lt Col J. S. Fahnestock, formerly Chief, Overseas Operating 3r, Operations Div, OCT ASF, 10 Apr and 14 Sep 45. In OCT HB file, STCPA - Miscellaneous.
36. (l) Rad, CinC SWPA to CG ASF, 22 May 45, Cm-In 21194. (2) Rad, CG ASF to CinC SWPA, 23 May 45, Cm-Cut 87006. (3) Rad, CinC SWPA to C5 ASF, 12 Jun 45, Cm-In 11626 (12 Jun 45). U ) Rad, Projected Logistics Sec, Logistics Grp, OPD GSUSA, to CinC SWPA, 15 Jun 45, Cm-Out 17928. (5) Disposition form, Chief, Projected Logistics Sec, Logistics Grp (Col Keith if. Barney), to CG ASF, 11 Jul 45. All in OCT 561.1 SWPA. (6) Army Command and Administrative Communications System. Part III. Signal Corps Domestic Communications Network as Extended to Oversea Terminals during the Period of Demobilization, 14 August 1945 - 31 December 1945, compiled by Pauline M. Oakes, Historian for Project B-5c, Mar 1946, Historical Sec, Special Activities, OCSigO, pp. 59-60.
- 428
CHAPTER VIII
Port Characteristics and Facilities
Probably as much as 90 percent of the cargo and passenger traffic
of the U. S. Army in the Southwest Pacific Area was moved through ports,
within ports, and by water between ports. A full account of the hundreds
of ports in the Southwest Pacific Area would require a volume. Attention
must here be confined to ports that were used extensively by the U. S.
Army, and to port characteristics that had a bearing on Army use of the
ports. Australian, New Guinea, and Philippine ports formed three groups
with differing physical characteristics, facilities, and relations to the
needs of the Army.
Information as to the condition and facilities of the ports at dif
ferent dates is less easily found than might be expected. A main source
of information is reports of cargo security officers. Such officers,
usually lieutenants recently commissioned and usually sent to the South
west Pacific on their first assignment, might visit several ports but not
have occasion to remain long enough in any one to obtain a thorough under
standing of its characteristics and operations. Their recent training by
the Transportation Corps could not entirely compensate for their usual lack
of experience in the Army and in water transportation. These officers,
however, as well as masters of vessels returning from the Southwest Pacific,
were interviewed by intelligence officers of the Army and the Navy in San
Francisco. Late in the war the Office of the Chief of Transportation, AST,
began to issue a publication entitled Information from Mariners, later
Positive Intelligence Bulletin, consisting mainly of facts collected from
- 429
such interviews and reports, with accompanying photographs and maps. This
chapter and to some extent the following are based in large part upon such
sources, supplemented by other records and corrected when feasible by ex
perienced and responsible officers who directed water transport in the
Southwest Pacific*
Ports in
The Australian ports were the main centers of transportation in a
continent in which the development of rail, highway, and air transportation
had been limited* Being in the Australian Zone of Interior, these ports
could be described as hosts of the U. S. Army. They were used by the Army
as the most available centers for the staging of personnel and the pro
curement, storage, maintenance, and issue of equipment and supplies for
combat operations in Hew Guinea, Army use of Australian ports declined
after it became possible to use the ports of New Guinea, and declined
still more after the Philippines became the main zone of combat*
Bases were established early in 1942 by the U, S. Army in seven Aus
Trucks were controlled by the Base Motor Command, coordinate with the
Fort Command*
The peak of Army operations at Manila came in November 1945, when the
main emphasis was placed on the most rapid possible return of Army person
nel to the United States; the peak of cargo-handling had already passed.
Release of port real estate and other facilities to civilians was well
under way before the end of December; civilian employees were increasingly
substituted for military personnel; and the proportion of Army traffic
handled by civilian shipping, which had grown from 10 percent in October
to 25 percent in November, continued to grow. In April 1946 the Army
studied a 5- to 15-year port development program, contemplating the port
of Manila as a semipermanent Army installation. One of the last actions
restoring the port to a peacetime status, with the U. S. Army and the
- 467
civilian authorities in a relation similar to that which had existed be
fore the war, was taken when the Philippine Commonwealth Government restuned
control of pilotage service on 29 June 1946. In August 1946 the Army still
retained 5 piers.
Operations in the port of Manila were by no means confined to the Port
Command. In the first few months the Port Command was so closely associated
with the 4th Engineer Special Brigade that Brig. Gen. Henry Hatchings, Jr.,
Commanding General, 4th ESB, served also as Commanding General, Port Command,
from 6 to 20 April 1945. The 544th and 594th Engineer Boat and Shore Regi
ments remained under operational control of the Port Command till June 1945,
and other elements of the 4th ESB remained in Manila till August. In the
initial assault on Manila and at all times thereafter the Navy operated in
close conjunction with the Port Command.^
- 468
Notes on Chapter VIII
1. The four ports are briefly discussed in Chap. II above.
2. (1) HTC .Australia, I, 88, 90. (2) Bad, GHQ, SWPA to TAG, 29 Apr 42, Cm-In 7768 (29 Apr 42). In OCT 565-900 SWPA. (3) Memo, Chief, Overseas Supply Div, SFPE (Col Abbott Boone), for CG SFPE, 11 Feb 43, sub: lgport of Visit to Pacific Bases. In OCT HB file, POA. (4) Australian Report, unsgd, evidently prepared by SOS, Jan 1943. In AS! Planning Div, policy file la - SWPA. (5) Lapham Bpt.
3. (1) HTC Australia, I, 72-76; II, 2. (2> Study by Lt Col Joseph S. Gorlinsfci for G-4, GSUSA, undtd. Atchd to note dtd 14 Jan 42. In GSUSA G-4, Transportation Br file, 000.900 Aastralia, Vol I. (3) Had, GHQ SWPA to TAG, cited in n. 2(2). (4) Report on Supply Operations in Australia, revised by Col F. A. Henning, addressee unnamed, 1 Aog 42. In AST Planning Div file, la-1 Joint Supply Program (SWP&SPA) IV, (5) Australian Report, cited in n. 2(4). (6) Lapham Rpt. (7) Information from Mariners, Rpt No. 132, compiled by Theater Grp, Collectidn Unit, Military Intelligence Div, 20 Dec 43. In OCT EB file, SWPA - Ports & Facilities. (8) Report of Intelligence Officer on SS William S. Ladd (2d Lt Burton A. Garlinghouse) to Director, Intelligence and Public Relations Div, SITE, 25 Jan 44. In OCT EB file, SWPA - Shipping.
4. (1) Rad, GHQ SWPA to TAG, cited in n. 2(2). (2) Henning Rpt, cited in n. 3(4). (3) Boone Rpt, cited in n. 2(3). (4) Australian Rpt, cited in n. 2(4). (5) Information from Mariners, Bpt No. 94, compiled by Theater Grp, Collection Unit, Military Intelligence Div, 13 Sep 43. In OCT HB file, SWPA - Ports & Facilities.
5. (1) Boone Bpt, cited in n. 2(3). (2) Lapham Rpt. (3) Undtd, unsgd rpt on harbor facilities of Cairns, secured from John Lindberg, Chief Officer of SS William B. Allison. In OCT HB file, SWPA - Ports & Facilities.
6. Lapham Rpt, pp. 16, 18*
7. (1) Memo, Director, Planning Div, ASF (Col Carter B. Magruder), for chiefs of services, 30 May 43, sub: Summary of Operations. In ASF Planning Div file, Projected Operations in S. Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, New Guinea, Marshall Is., Caroline Is. (17). (2) Extracts from Remarks by Maj Gen LeRoy Lutes, Director of Operations, ASF, at the WD Conference of Industry, Labor, and Newspaper Leaders, 28 Sep 43. In OCT HB file, SWPA Shipping.
8. Bpt No. 51, ASF Board, SWPA, by Col G. B. Troland, undtd (filed 5 Jun 44), sub: Notes on Army Engineer Operations in SWPA. In OCT 319.1 SWPA.
9. (1) HTC Hq, Supplement, 1942, pp. 1-4. (2) Boone Rpt, cited in
S89954O—50 32
n. 2(3). (3) Lapham Rpt, pp. 27-29. (4) Information from Mariners, No. 93, compiled by Collection Unit, Military Intelligence Service, 10 Sep 43. In OCT HB file, SWPA - New Guinea - Miscellaneous. Contains rpt from Master of SS Cape Newenham on Port Mores"by, visited 1-15 Jul 43. (5) Information from Mariners, No. 119, compiled by Theater Grp, Collection Unit, Military Intelligence Service, 23 Nov 43. In OCT HB file, SWPA - Ports & Facilities. Contains information from the Chief Officer, MS Cape Flaherty. (6) Rpt, Military Intelligence Officer, SFPE (Maj Martin S. Mitau), to Chief, Domestic Br, Collection Unit, Military Intelligence Div, 9 Feb 44, sub: Information from Mariners - Port Moresby, serial 2978. In OCT HB file, SWPA - New Guinea - Miscellaneous. Contains information from William Gornforth, Master, Clarence King, who visited Port Moresby 9 Nov 43. (7) Garlinghouse Rpt, cited in n. 3(8). (8) Memo, Chief, Overseas Supply Div, SFPE (Col Abbott Boone), for CG USASOS, 5 Dec 42, sub: Supplementary Report of Col. Abbott Boone. In OCT HB file, POA.
10. (1) HTC Hq., Supplement, 1942, pp. 4-6. (2) HTC New Guinea, 194244, pp. 10-22; 1945, pp. 4-8. (3) Milne Bay, New Guinea, as a Base from July 1942 to June 1944. Atchd to History of Base Section 7, April 1942 - October 1943. In SSUSA HD file, 780-12. (4) Information from Mariners, unnumbered, compiled by Theater Grp, Collection Unit, Military Intelligence Div, 13 Dec 43. In OCT HB file, SWPA - New Guinea - Miscellaneous. Contains information from Chief Officer, William B. Allison, who visited Milne Bay 26 Jun - 7 Jul 43. (5) Rpt, MI Officer, SFPE (Maj Martin S. Mitau), to Chief, Domestic Br, Collection Unit, Military Intelligence Service, serial 2726, 10 Dec 43, sub: Information from Mariners. Same file. Contains information from J. A. Kresser, Chief Mate, SS Cape Grieg, who visited Waga Waga 26 Aug 43. (6) Undtd, unsgd rpt on harbor facilities secured from 1st Lt George F. Cassill, formerly Cargo Security Officer, SS James K. Kelly, who visited Milne Bay in Sep and Oct 1943. Apparently compiled by Collection Unit, Military Intelligence Service. In OCT HB file, SWPA - Ports & Facilities. (7) Rpt, MI Officer, SFPE (Maj Martin S. Mitau), to Chief, Domestic Br, Collection Unit, Military Intelligence Div, 9 Feb 44, sub: Information from Mariners -Milne Bay, serial 2977. In OCT HB file, SWPA - New Guinea - Miscellaneous. Contains information from William Gornforth, Master, Clarence King, who visited Milne Bay 3 Oct 43. (8) Excerpt from boarding rpt, District Intelligence Office, 12th Naval Dist, San Francisco, 12 Oct 43, based on interview with an officer of the USAT Fred C. Ainsworth* Same file. (9) Information from Mariners, No. 104, compiled by Theater Grp, Collection Unit, Military Intelligence Service, 13 Oct 43. Same file. Contains information from Chief Officer, MV Torrens. (10) Extract from rpt, Cargo Security Officer, SS Ben T. Osborne. which was at Milne Bay 18 Nov - 5 Dec 43. Same file. (11) Sp-eech delivered by Lt Col R. C. Marshall, formerly Executive Officer, Port Command, Milne Bay, 20 Mar 44, sub: Operations of the Base A Port Command. Same file. Printed, somewhat edited, as "Milne Bay," in Army Transportation Journal. Vol I, No. 4 (May 1945), pp. 8-9, 34. (12) Positive Intelligence Bulletins Nos. 1 (11 Aug 44), 4 (31 Aug 44), and 6 (26 Sep 44), issued by OCT. In OCT HB file, SWPA - New Guinea, Pos. Intell. Bull. (13) Rpt, ACofT for Operations, ASF (Brig Gen Robert H. Wylie), addressee unnamed, undtd, sub: Notes on Trip from Washington to POA and SWPA, 19 March to 22 April 1945, pp. 15-16. In OCT HB, Wylie file, Pacific
- 470
Reports of Visits. (14) Notes of interview with Lt Col R. C. Marshall, formerly Executive Officer, Port Command, Milne Bay, 25 Aug 44. In OCT HB, SWPA - Miscellaneous.
11. (1) HTC New Guinea, 1942-44, pp. 23-32; 1945, pp. 9-13. (2) Information from Mariners, No. 123, compiled by Theater Grp, Collection Unit, Military Intelligence Div, 30 Nov 43. In OCT HB file, SWPA - New Guinea - Miscellaneous. Contains rpt on Oro Bay, visited 12 Sep - 1 Oct 43 by officers of the SS Cape Constance- (3) Extract from intelligence rpt of 12th Naval Dist, 30 Nov 43, "based on interview with officers of SS Cape Constance. Same file. (4) Positive Intelligence Bulletins Nos. 4 (31 Aug 44), 6 (26 Sep 44), and 18 (27 Mar 45), issued by OCT. In OCT HB file, SWPA - New Guinea - Pos. Intell. Bull. (5) apt, Maj Mark C. Collarino, Overseas Operations Br, Planning Div, OCT, to ACofT for Operations, ASP, 1 May 45, sub: Notes on Trip from Washington to POA and SWPA, 19 March to 22 April. In OCT HB file, POA. (6) Interview with Lt Col Carroll K. Moffatt, formerly Port Commander, Oro Bay, 18 Mar 49, and notes by him on a draft of this paragraph. (7) History of Port Detachment E, 1 Jun 44, In possession of Col Moffatt.
12. (1) HTC New Guinea, 1942-44, pp. 33-41; 1945, pp. 14-17. (2) Base at Lae until March 1944. In SSUSA KD file, 780-18^ (3) USASOS Military History, pp. 71-73. (4) Rpt, MI Officer, SITE (Maj Martin S. Mitau), to Chief, Domestic Br, Collection Unit, Military Intelligence Service, 10 Dec 43, serial 2727, sub; Information from Mariners. In OCT HB file, SWPA - New Guinea - Miscellaneous. Contains information from J. A. Kresser, Chief Mate, SS Cape Grieg, at Lae 20 Oct 43. (5) Positive Intelligence Bulletin No. 8, issued by OCT, 18 Oct 44. In OCT HB file, SWPA - New Guinea - Pos. Intell. Bull. (6) "All Ashore at Lae," by Maj William P. Bell. In Army Transportation Journal* Vol I, No. 2 (Mar 1945), pp. 27, 39.
13. (1) HTC New Guinea, 1942-44, pp. 42-50; 1945, pp. 18-24. (2) HTC Hq, Apr 1946, p. 41. (3) USASOS Military History, p. 73. (4) Finschhafen, New Guinea, since Activation 1943 until April 1944. In SSUSA HD file, 780-19. (5) Rpt, Cargo Security Officer, James M. ^oodhue (2d Lt Charles A. Deedman), to Director, Intelligence and Public Relations Div, SEPE, 24 Mar 44, sub: Intelligence Report, In OCT HB file, SWPA - Shipping. (6) Positive Intelligence Bulletins Nos. 4 (31 Aug 44), 8 (18 Oct 44), and 18 (27 Mar 45), compiled by OCT. In OCT HB file, SWPA - New Guinea - Pos. Intell. Bull. (7) Wylie Rpt, cited in n. 10(13).
14. The first four sentences of the paragraph above were written by Col Russell V. Perry, formerly Port Commander, Hollandia, for insertion in this study.
15. (1) HTC New Guinea, 1942-44, pp. 51-58; 1945, pp. 25-52. (2) Base G at Hollandia from Pounding, March 1944, to May 1945. In SSUSA HD file 780-21. (3) Positive Intelligence Bulletins Nos. 1 (11 Aug 44), 5 (8 Sep 44), 8 (18 Oct 44), 10 (13 Nov 44), 14 (9 Jan 45), 18 (27 Mar 45), issued by OCT. In OCT HB file, SWPA - New Guinea - Pos. Intell. Bull. (4) Wylie rpt, pp. 13-14, cited in n. 10(13). (5) Interview with Col
- 471
Russell V. Perry, formerly Port Commander, Hollandia, 16 May 49, and notes "by him on a draft of this paragraph. (6) Memo, Deputy Director, Storage Div, ASF (Col William C. Crosby), for Director of Supply, AS!, 12 Dec 44, sub: Report on Trip to Pacific Ocean Area and Southwest Pacific Area, par 21. App 2, Tab 4, to monograph, Appendices to Storage Operations, Dec 1941 - Dec 1945, prepared by Storage Div, ASP. In SSUSA HD file,
16. (1) HTC New Guinea, 1942-44, pp. 59-65; 1945, pp. 53-61, (2) Positive Intelligence Bulletins Nos. 6 (26 Sep 44), 9 (31 Oct 44), 12 (7 Dec 44), 16 (15 Feb 45), and 19 (ll Apr 45), issued by OCT, In OCT HB file, SWPA - New Guinea - Pos. Intell. Bull,
17. (1) Extracts from Boarding Report of 12th Naval Dist, 29 Dec 43, In OCT KB file, SWPA - New Guinea - Miscellaneous, Contains information from Master, SS Jo si ah Royce. in SWPA Jun-Nov 1943, (2) Information from Mariners, No, 131, compiled by Theater Grp, Collection Unit, Military Intelligence Div, 18 Dec 43, Same file* (3) Information from Mariners, No, 119, cited in n, 9(5), (4) Extract from Boarding Report of SS Junipero Serra. boarded at SFPE, 25 Oct 43. In OCT HB file, SWPA - New Guinea Miscellaneous, (5) Rpt, Maj Herbert H, Naught on, addressee unnamed, on Morotai, Apr 1945, Ref 6 to HTC Hq., Apr 1945, For identification see HTC Hq, Apr 1945, p, 4. (6) Positive Intelligence Bulletins Nos, 5 (8 Sep 44), 6 (26 Sep 44), 9 (31 Oct 44), 10 (13 Nov 44), 16 (15 Feb 45), 18 (27 Mar 45), 19 (11 Apr 45), issued by OCT, In OCT HB file, SWPA - ^ew Guinea -Pos. Intell. Bull. (7) HTC Hq, Mar 1945, p. 10. (8) Interview with Lt Col Carroll K. Moffatt, formerly Port Commander, Oro Bay, 28 Mar 49 (information on Mo robe).
18. Philippine Islands, Commonwealth of the Philippines, prepared by Foreign Economic Sec, Strategic Logistic Br, Planning Div, ASF, 6 Mar 45. Tab F to Logistic Study for Projected Operations, prepared by Planning Div, ASF, undtd, ASF-P-SL-5. In ASF Planning Div file.
19. (1) HTC Philippine Islands, Oct 1944 - Jan 1945, pp. 1-4; Feb 1945, p, 3; Mar 1945, pp. 2-6; May 1945, p, 11; Jun 1945, p, 13. (2) Positive Intelligence Bulletins Nos. 16 (15 Feb 45), 17 (l Mar 45), 21 (18 May 45), issued by OCT. In OCT HB file, SWPA - Philippines - Pos, Intell. Bull.
20. (1) HTC Philippine Islands, Oct 1944 - Jan 1945, pp. 12-15; Mar 1945, p. 6; Apr 1945, p. 15; May 1945, pp. 8-10. (2) Positive Intelligence Bulletins Nos. 21 (18 May 45), 25 (7 Jul 45), issued by OCT. In OCT HB file, SWPA - Philippines - Pos. Intell. Bull.
21. (1) HTO Philippine Islands, May 1945, pp. 14-16; Jun 1945, pp. 16-17; Jul 1945, pp. 9-10; Aag 1945, p. 12; Sep 1945, p. 12; Dec 1945, p. 28. (2) Positive Intelligence Bulletin No. 22 (26 May 45), issued by OCT. In OCT HB file, SWPA - Philippines - Pos. Intell. Bull. (3) AFWESPAC, Semi-Annual Report. 1 Jun - 31 Dec 45 (n.p., n.d.), p. 53. (4) Interview with Col Russell 7. Perry, formerly Port Commander, Batangas, 16 May 49.
- 472
22. (1) HTC Philippine Islands, Jun 1945, pp. 18-19; Jul 1945, pp. 11-12; Aug 1945, p. 14; Sep 1945, p. 14; Oct 1945, p. 14; Dec 1945, pp. 29-32. (2) Rpt, Maj Herbert H. Naughton, addressee unnamed, on Cebu, -Apr 1945. Ref 8 to HTC Hi, Apr 1945. For identification see HTO Hq, Apr 1945, p. 4. (3) Positive Intelligence Bulletins Nos. 24 (23 Jun 45) and 26 (25 Jail 45), issued by OCT. In OCT HB file, SWPA - Philippines - Pos. Intell. Bull.
23. (1) Rpts "by Maj Herbert H. Naughton, addressee unnamed, Apr 1945, on Zamboanga, Puerto Princesa, and Mindoro. Befs 7, 9, and 10 to HTC Hq, Apr 1945. lor authorship and date see HTC Hq, Apr 1945, p. 4. (2) Positive Intelligence Bulletins Nos. 21 (18 May 45), 25 (7 Jul 45), issued by OCT. In OCT HB file, SWPA - Philippines - Pos. Intell. Bull.
24. (1) HTC Hq, Jan 1946, pp. 14-16. (2) Positive Intelligence Bulletins Nos. 18 (27 Mar 45), 21 (18 May 45), issued by OCT. In OCT HB file, SWPA - Philippines - Pos. Intell. Bull.
24a. No ready explanation of this fact is found. Probably the damage caused by two typhoons later in the year accounts for the absence of oceangoing vessels on and after 16 September.
25. (l) History of Transportation Activities on Okinawa from Inception through 1945. In OCT HB file, Okinawa. (2) HTC Hq, Jan 1946, p. 49; Apr 1946, p. 40: Jun 1946, p. 33; Aug 1946, p. 33. (3) Positive Intelligence Bulletins Nos. 26 (25 Jul 45), 27 (9 Aug 45), issued by OCT ASF. In OCT HB file, SWPA - Okinawa.
26. (1) HTC Philippine Islands, Mar 1945, pp. 10-24; Apr 1945, pp. 2-10; May 1945, pp. 1-7; Jun 1945, pp. 1-9; Jul 1945, pp. 1-3; Aug 1945, pp. 1-5; Sep 1945, px>. 1-5; Oct 1945, pp. 1-6; Nov 1945, pp. 1-10; Dec 1945, pp. 1-11. (2) HTC Hq, Jan 1946, pp. 34-40; Apr 1946, pp. 21-28; May 1946, p. 18; Jun 1946, p. 21; Jul 1946, pp. 17, 21; Aug 1946, pp. 27, 29. (3) MOVCJS, issued by Water Div, OCT ASP, Apr 1945. In OCT HB, organizational file, Water Div, Vessel Utilization Rpt. (4) M300 Sunken Craft Block Manila Bay," article in New York Times. 15 Mar 45. Atchd to ltr, Executive Asst, OCT ASP (C. C. Wardlow), to CG USASOS. In OCT HB file, SWPA Correspondence - Australia. (5) Monthly History for March 1945 from Office of the"Port Commander, Hq, PHIBSEC, to CG USASOS, 1 Apr 45. Incl 9 to Collarino Rpt, cited in n. 11(5). (6) Positive Intelligence Bulletin No. 25, issued by OCT ASF, 7 Jul 45. In OCT HB file, SWPA - Philippines - Pos. Intell. Bull.
- 473
CHAPTER IX
The Handling of Cargo
Details presented in the preceding chapter appear to warrant the
following general statements, (l) Ports used by the U. S. Army in the
Southwest Pacific Area were districted over a distance of some 6,000
miles "between Melbourne and Naha. (2) More than half of these ports were
virtually creations of the U. S. Army and the U. S. Navy. (3) Only three
or four of the ports — Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane (to a limited degree),
and Manila — were well adapted to receive large oceangoing vessels directly
at wharves or piers. (4) A large proportion of cargo, not exactly computa
ble from available records, was necessarily handled in the stream* (5)
Stream operations required excessive use of lighterage equipment — barges
and tugs, landing craft (LSTs, LCTs, LCMs, LCVPs), and amphibian craft and
vehicles (particularly DDKVTs). (6) Swampy and muddy shores frequently
necessitated the location of supply dumps, storehouses, and airstrips at
excessive distances from the shore line, entailing excessive road construc
tion and excessive turnaround for trucks and DUKWs. (?) Heat and humidity,
heavy rainfall, and violent storms adversely affected the efficiency of
both operation and maintenance by the resultant rusting and rotting of
equipment, washing away of roads and bridges, reduction of working hours,
and exhaustion and illness of port personnel* (8) All these facts required
the Army to provide excessive quantities of equipment, and of personnel to
operate and maintain the equipment. (9) The quantities of equipment and
port personnel made available were not regarded as sufficient. (10) Be
cause of these conditions the Southwest Pacific Area could not discharge
and load cargo and personnel with a high degree of efficiency*
- 47-1
Port Equipment
The shortage of port equipment in SWPA required repeated decisions
in Washington as to allocation and shipping of the limited quantity pro
duced by American industry for use in all theaters. The need for large
quantities of port equipment in SWPA was obvious as soon as V. S. forces
arrived in Australia. On 2 February 1942 the War Department notified the
CG, USAPIA, that shipment would be made in late March and early April of
"the equipment you required in Australian ports" — 36 tractors, 325 trail
ers, 15 cranes, and 63 fork lifts. Similar requests were made by the Army
almost continuously till the end of the war. Equipment was needed also by
the Australian Government, which pointed out on 8 November 1942 that "water
front conditions in Australia are almost primitive and consequently delay
in the turnabout of Lend Lease vessels must continue unless adequate mechan
ical aid is available.M The U. S. Army in Australia had "every disposition"
to cooperate with the Australians but could spare no equipment. Australia
therefore requested earliest possible shipment of 40 mobile cranes, 25 fork
lift trucks, and 40 tractors and trailers, and noted in its requisition
that "owing to wharf and shed surfaces we stress necessity for rubber wheels,
good ground clearance, and very particularly manoeuverability of all (except
5 ton cranes) in crowded sheds with columns spaced usually less than 20 feet
apart." After correspondence with General MacArthur the War Department
decided that it could not divert these items from Army and Navy use, but
suggested that they could probably be procured by the Treasury Department.
Australian equipment was inadequate; but in New Guinea and the Philip
pines, when the U. S. Army arrived, there was virtually no equipment what
ever, and enormous requisitions were made upon the United States.
- 475
late in the war the Army was unable to use the largest and heaviest equip
ment. On 17 March 1944 the War Department offered to General MacArthur a
crawler crane weighing 282,000 pounds and able to lift 100 tons. The thea
ter replied that this crane was too heavy to be supported by existing or
proposed docks and hardstandings, or to be moved from one island base to
another without almost complete disassembly, and that loads greater than 60
tons could be lifted by using together two floating cranes of 60-ton capa
city. Later, however, operations in Manila Harbor required a 150-ton float
ing crane. In April 1945 the heaviest floating crane available in the
theater, of 100-ton capacity, was in use by the Navy for clearing Manila
Harbor. Delivery of the 150-ton crane was delayed till November 1945.
The basis of the theater's requirements for cargo-handling equipment
was computed systematically in a manual issued by USASOS on 15 December 1944,
listing the following 16 items:
3 LCMs per hatch — 1 loading, 1 discharging, and 1 moving between ship and beach (a smaller number being insufficient to keep a hatch gang steadily at work)
3 barges per hatch for barges of 100 feet or less, lj barges per hatch for barges more than 100 feet long (able to discharge 2 hatches simultaneously) , or 9 barges of over 100 feet for a standard 5-hatch Liberty ship
LCTs, Marks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, same "factor" (ratio per hatch) as for barges, with a higher "factor" for Mark 6
At least 3 DUKWs per hatch and 15 per Liberty ship, but preferably, if only 1 DUKW ramp is available to a 5-hatch unit, the whole 23 DUKWs assigned to a DUKW company
4 harbor tugs for each 5-hatch unit discharging into other than self-propelled lighterage equipment, and 1 harbor tug for each floating crane (to be used, while not placing the crane, to dock vessels)
1 floating crane (i.e., crane on a barge) for each 5 5-hatch units
5 mobile cranes for over-the-wharf discharge of a 5-hatch unit (when
- 478
dumps are at dock or when local sorting is done there), or 10 for stream discharge not by DUKWs (l for each lighter berth or amphibious craft slot and 5 for the dumps), or 5 (at the dumps) for stream discharge "by DUKWs
2 20-ton low-bed trailers and 1 16-ton low-bed trailer for each 5-hatch unit (to move exceedingly heavy cargo and cases too large to fit standard 6-x-6 trucks), and 1 standard prime mover for each low-bed trailer
The trucks and personnel of 1 Q^ truck company, with driver augmentation under T/0 10-500, for each 5-hatch unit (experience in SWPA having shown that 1 company could clear a port of 1,000 MT per day)
2 complete sets of standard stevedore gear ("all the necessary slings, wires, ropes, shackles and spreaders necessary to discharge normal military cargo") for discharging over a wharf or by DUKWs (l set for the ship, 1 for the dump cranes), and 3 complete sets for stream discharge not by DUKWs (1 for the ship, 1 for the shore-side handling cranes, 1 for the dump cranes), special sets for particularly heavy lifts (such as locomotives) being requisitioned to accompany the article
200 4-x-6 pallets per 5-hatch unit
2 600-foot lengths of gravity conveyor sections per ship for over-thewharf and DUKtf discharge (200 feet for the ship's holds and 200 for the dump), and 3 600-foot lengths for stream discharge not by DUKWs (200 feet for the holds, 200 feet for the shore, and 200 for the dump)
7 fork-lift trucks for each Liberty berth, LCT (standing on the cargo deck of the LCT), LCM, or barge (standing on barge jetties or hard stands), to allow 5 fork lifts to be vorking while 2 are being repaired (50 percent of the fork lifts for handling weights from 3,000 to 5,000 pounds, 48 percent for handling weights fron 6,000 to 8,000 pounds, and 2 percent for heavier weights)
D-6 equipment crawler tractor to tow heavy equipment or haul low-bed trailers through sandy beaches to a point where they may be better drawn by prime movers
2 harbor craft (1 able to move enough men to operate a 5-hatch unit, 1 having a minimum speed of 12 knots), "for the purpose of moving gangs to and from ships working in the stream, for the accomplishment of ships' business, and for ready access for the purpose of supervision"
3 T-49 trailers (still in the experimental stage) per ship, to move unwieldy pieces of equipment such as piles, poles, pipe, and timber^
Except for fork-lift trucks these requirements made no allowance for
deadlined equipment, which in some ports might total from a quarter to more
- 477
than three quarters of all that was on hand. Even the mininum require
ment for equipment was rarely available in ports of SWPA. ±Jvery port pre
sented a different combination of problems, depending on conditions such
as feasibility of over-the^wharf discharge, distance of dumps from water
side, exposure of anchorage and cargo-handling areas to rough water, rela
tive urgency of speed and of economy in cargo-handling operations, and
duration of contemplated Army use of the port. Every port was constantly
subject to the danger that part of its equipment and personnel, however
desperately needed where they were, would be suddenly transferred to another
port of which the needs were still more desperate; and most port commanders
could expect that sudden withdrawal of Navy, Engineering, and Quartermaster
equipment and personnel previously available would further reduce their
ability to perform their assigned tasks. The Army was obliged to operate
an excessive number of ports, separated by excessive distances, with in
sufficient equipment and personnel. Each port required a new and different
exercise of ingenuity.
Cargo-Handling Personnel
Both military and local civilian personnel were employed to load and
unload Army cargo in ports of the Southwest Pacific Area. In Australia,
for reasons to be set forth later, most port cargo was handled by civilians;
in Hew Guinea almost all was handled by the Army; and in the Philippines
both Army and civilian personnel v;as extensively employed.
The number of processes and the number and types of personnel required
depended on whether the ship was worked in the stream or in a dock and
whether dumps and storehouses were located at the shore or some distance
- 478
inland. Various combinations of the following processes were necessary:
(1) transferring cargo from the ship (a) into trucks, railroad cars, or other carriers at the dock, (b) directly to the surface of the wharf or pier or into storehouses located there, or (c) into barges, landing craft, or amphibian vehicles or craft in the stream
(2) moving cargo from the ship in the stream to a dock, jetty, or landing-craft slot by means of barges or landing craft
(3) transferring cargo from barges or landing craft into carriers or directly to the surface of the wharf, jetty, or beach
(4) transferring cargo deposited on the wharf, jetty, or beach to a carrier
(5) moving cargo from wharf, jetty, or beach to inland dumps or storehouses by means of trucks, railroad cars, animal-drawn vehicles, or animal or human carriers
(6) moving cargo from the ship to inland dumps or storehouses by means of amphibian craft or vehicles
(7) unloading cargo at inland dumps or storehouses
(8)-(l4) the same processes in reverse, beginning with the storehouse, dump, or other source of cargo on land and ending with the ship
Prom the point of view of transportation all these processes could
have been planned, coordinated, and controlled by the base port commander,
and the necessary equipment and personnel could have been assigned to him;
but after 1 January 1944 his control was usually limited to processes (l)
(4) and (6) and the reverse of these processes, process (5) and the reverse
being controlled by the base motor commander, and process (7) and the re
verse by the base service commander. This dispersion of control required
coordination either by liaison or by action of the base commander.
An inspector from Headquarters, ASF, recommended in December 1944
that a director of supply operations be appointed in each base to coordi
nate and supervise the operations of the port commander, the motor com
mander, and the service commander. The theater replied that a standard
- 479
supply control system in all bases was not desired, and that each base
must solve the problem as the "base commander thought best. At Hollandia
in late 1944 the base G-4 held a regular daily conference with the port
coramander, the motor officer, and the chief officer of each service; the
port commander stated what motor transport he expected to need during the
next twenty-four hours, and effort was made to adjust all movements be
tween ship and dump with minimum waste of time and labor. A similar sys
tem was in effect at Oro Bay. Former port commanders of both these typical
New Guinea ports are of opinion that the system worked satisfactorily and
2awould not have been improved by any change in organization.
Military -personnel
On 15 December 1944 USASOS explained in a manual the types and numbers
of personnel considered necessary at that time to load, unload, and move
Army cargo in ports. The following types were prescribed:
1 port company (expanded by 300 enlisted men) to discharge a 5-hatch unit, each shift working 6 hours and resting 12 hours
1 service company for each 5-hatch unit, to assist in discharge of trucks, operation of dump cranes, and technical supervision of dump-handling
harbor-craft companies to operate floating cranes, harbor launches, harbor tugs, barges, and LCMs; to be deployed with a particular port in mind, the requirement varying greatly with the type of work
port marine maintenance companies, required only in major ports to do heavy shop work and operate slipways
Army marine repair ship companies, operating repair shops on (l) Army marine repair ships, with ship and gans operated by a Coast Guard crew, and (2) repair barges, not self-propelled, operated by the Army marine repair ship companies
1 DUE)1/ company (amphibian truck company) to discharge a 5-hatch unit
1 headquarters and headquarters detachment, port battalion, for each 6
- 480
port companies; not to be provided in a station with fewer than 3 port companies
depot companies, TO, "deployed according to theater supply policy"
casuals, to "be employed as available and needed3
These types of units had gradually become available to SWPA in the
course of nearly three yeexs. The first U. 3. troops, which arrived in
Australia on 22 December 1941, included no port units. Col. Van S. Merle
Smith, U. S. military attache in Australia, immediately requested the dis
patch of Army port labor to Australia. On 5 January 1942 General Somervell,
Assistant Chief of Staff, G-4, GSUSA, recommended to the War Plans Division
the dispatch of a port battalion to Australia to accelerate unloading and
thus reduce turnaround and relieve a severe shipping shortage. On 25 Janu
ary War Plans Division concurred in this recommendation, but quoted the
Australian Embassy to the effect that the Australian Government would not
admit a negro unit to Australia and that a white port battalion should be
created. General Somervell accepted this condition but G-3, GSUSA, did
not. USAPIA had indicated that Australian authorities did not seriously
object to negro labor battalions, and urged that these be sent if no other
labor was available. Plans were made by 6 February 1942 to dispatch the
394th QJ-1 Battalion (Port), a negro unit, to Australia.4
General Marshall, Chief of Staff, in instructions transmitted on 6
February to Brig. Gen. Arthur R. Wilson, appointed to organize a supply
S7/-stem in Australia, emphasized the necessity of holding at a minimum the
service troops to be sent to Australia and of employing Australian civil
ians "to the fullest extent possible." General 'Jilson recommended, in
keeping with these instructions, that only skeletonised service organiza
- 481
tions be sent to Australia, to supply key men capable of supervising fill
ers procured locally. On 12 February G-4 rejected this recommendation and
urged (successfully) that service units destined for Australia be sent at
full T/0 strength. On 26 February, before any service troops arrived in
Australia, the Chief of Staff, USAFIA, reported that USAFIA was "in sad
need of all the S.O.S. troops which we have asked for, such as depot com
panies, maintenance companies, port battalions, port headquarters, etc."
He added that USAFIA required "thousands and thousands and thousands of
labor" and was trying to obtain labor from the Netherlands Bast Indies and
India. On 24 April Col. Thomas B. Wilson, Chief of Transportation Service,
USAFIA, reported to Brig. Gen. Arthur B. Wilson, Assistant Chief of Staff,
G-4, USAFIA, that the "stevedore and dock labor situation" was "deplorable"
and that inexperienced U. S. combat troops ana Australian soldier units de
tailed to the docks had not been found satisfactory. He therefore urged that
two stevedoring battalions (presumably in addition to those already sent)
be ordered by cable at once.^
On 1 July 1942 Gen. Arthur R. Wilson, after his return to the United
States, reported that there was "an honest difference of opinion" as to
whether port battalions should be sent from the United States. In obedi
ence to orders of Maj. Gen. Julian F. Barnes, Commanding General, USAFIA,
he had prepared the cables and the plans for the use of these battalions,
but he personally believed that civilian Australian stevedores and newly
organized stevedore battalions of the Australian Army (men from 44 to 54
years old) could furnish all necessary dock labor and that the two U. S.
white stevedore battalions already in Australia (the 387th, with 19 officers
and 925 enlisted men, and a provisional port battalion of 58 officers and 882
- 482
enlisted men) should be disbanded to furnish replacements for other units.
General Wilson asserted that General Barnes had not conferred with "a
representative cross-section of Australian official opinion" before in
forming the War Department that colored units would be acceptable in Aus
tralia. The presence of negro troops in "white Australia" had caused
"considerable trouble," in one instance "very serious riot bordering on
mutiny," developing when negroes were seen in the company of white women.
The 394th Port Battalion Cl9 officers, 925 enlisted men), colored, had
arrived at Port Moresby on 13 June 1942. So far as is known neither this
unit nor any other negro port organization was thereafter stationed in
Australia. On the other hand, no racial troubles were reported from New
Guinea, where eventually a large number of negro troops were employed.
According to a memorandum of the Plsus Division, SOS, 24 July 1942,
both the Plans Division, SOS, and the Operations Division, G-SUSA, were
"aware of the need for additional service troops in Australia," but
"practically all available units" were "earmarked for BOLERO," which had
higher priority. General MacArthur had. requested for first-priority ship
ment one truck regiment, white (less two battalions), and one port labor
battalion, white; for second priority, one port labor battalion and one
truck battalion, both white; for third priority, one truck battalion,
white, and two Aviation truck companies; and for fourth priority one truck
battalion, white (less one company).' None of these could be provided. In
the opinion of. the Plans Division, "The fundamental cause of the serious
shortage of service units is the inadequacy of the troop unit basis for
1942 and subsequent additions." Establishment of the troop basis was a
responsibility of G-3, GSUSA, which evidently disagreed with the Operations
- 483
Division and the Plans Division in regard to the ratio of service troops
to combat troops,
By 1 August 1942 the shortage of service personnel in the theater was
described "by USASOS as "most acute." Two white port battalions had been
requisitioned for Melbourne, and Transportation Service, USAPIA, had recom
mended the requisitioning of two for Sydney and one for Brisbane. USASOS,
however, did not station such battalions in Australia, partly because of
opposition from Australian labor and the Australian Government and partly
because all units dispatched to the theater were more urgently needed in Q
Hew Guinea.
On 7 December 1942 General Somervell notified the Commanding General,
USASOS, that the Transportation Corps was able to furnish port battalions,
which "will normally be colored," for duty in SWPA, and suggested that the
Army coordinate its requirements with the Navy, whose construction battalions
(Seabees) included stevedore personnel. On 20 December General MacArthur
replied that the Navy had no construction battalions in SVJPA. He requested
four port battalions in addition to those previously requisitioned, "to be
shipped as space will allow without disrupting present priorities." At this
time the only U. S. port units actually in the theater were the 387th and
394th port battalions (each with authorized strength of 19 officers, two
warrant officers, and 870 enlisted men), and the 2d, 22d, and 23d Ports of
Embarkation which, as explained in Chapter II, were mere pools of personnel*
Shortage of port personnel continued throughout 1943, in spite of
several increments. To the 387th and 394th Port Battalions the 373d, the
489th, and the 491st had been added by June 1943; the 495th arrived in Sep
tember, the 496th and the 503d in November, and the 506th before the end
- 4 8 4
of the year; the 493d was en route at that time. With rapidly expanding
lighterage and small-boat operations the need for military units to carry
on these operations had "become acute by the beginning of 1943. On 31
December 1942 the theater was authorized to activate 10 QM boat companies
(T/0 10-497, 11 February 1942), each with a strength of 3 officers, 30
warrant officers, and 142 enlisted men. The 316th through the 325th QM
Boat Companies were activated effective 1 January 1943 from personnel
available in the theater and were assigned to the technical control of the
Chief of Transportation, USASOS. The first four companies were stationed
at Milne Bay, the 320th, 321st, and 322d at Port Moresby, and the remain
ing three (temporarily) at Townsville.11
These units proved insufficient to handle the rapidly growing volume
of traffic in the ports. In March 1943, when as yet only two U. S. Army
port battalions were available in SWPA, an observer from San Francisco re
marked that supervisors, foremen, and pier superintendents were "wanted
desperately," that young officers who knew how to operate pier terminals
and load and unload ships were lacking, that "the crying need in this country
is labour" (especially stevedores and truck drivers), that campaigns in New
Guinea could not be carried on without labor to unload cargo and haul it
away, and that commanders who would not permit their combat troops to handle
cargo were exnibiting "short-sighted stupidity." Only the 41st Division
had fully recognized the necessity of putting soldiers to work as stevedores.
In April 1943 the Superintendent of Army Transport Service, San Francisco
Port of Embarkation, after visiting SWPA, remarked, "The Army apparently
were slow to recognize the fact that service troops should go ahead of, or
at least accompany, combat troops into new «ro«-," He reported that the
889954O—50 33
Navy had furnished more and "better service units to SWPA than the Army-
had and that in many bases the Army had been "somewhat dependent11 on Navy
port and construction units* He found port officers overworked, and recom
mended relief for those who had worked too long without rest. In Mpy 1943
Lt. Cols. Alfred VI# Parry, Jr., and Rudolph G. Lehnau, from the Control
Division, ASF, reported that at nearly every place visited by them in SWPA
"the general complaint of officers was the lack of service personnel, re
quiring the use of combat soldiers for labor services, particularly in
connection with transportation." Parry and Lehnau attributed this deficiea
to priorities established by the theater, and suggested that "high priori
ties on service units would immediately remedy the situation." They dis
claimed intent to criticize the theater policy ol employing only civilians
in Australian ports, but suggested that only soldiers be employed at night
or that 50 percent of the dock labor be done by soldiers. They noted "a
general shortage of transportation officers, particularly junior officers,
for supervision of stevedoring, barge operation, truck operation, small
boat operation, etc." They found that "too long a tour of duty on these
tropical islands" tended to "burn out the men," and they recommended a
rotating replacement plan.^2
In September 1943 General Somervell, visiting SWPA, was informed by
the theater that service troops were "barely adequate for present and pro
spective operations. Limitation of available shipping has necessitated
that service troops be held to a minimum." The theater reported further
that temporary and emergency assignment of combat troops to service func
tions had produced no evident "deleterious effect on training, conduct of
operations, or morale," but that more TC units were "needed for efficient
_ AftA
operation." Shortage was attributed to lack of available shipping space
and to unavai.lability of needed units in the United States. Trained DUKW
companies were particularly needed; provisional companies organized in the
theater to operate DUKWs had not made efficient use of this new type of
equipment. General Somervell himself detected Na great need for service
troops" at every point that he visited in SWPA, and reported with satis
faction that GHQ, had recently lowered priorities on combat units in favor
of adding about 29,000 service troops 13
Attached to the theater's report to General Somervell was an unsigned,
unaddressed memoran. un of 16 September 1943, evidently prepared in the
theater, recommending that 29,000 additional service troops be included
in the troop basis for 1944 (among them 6 port battalions, strength 5,664).
The recommendation was Justified as follows:
Recent information received informally from the War Department indicates that Theater needs for troops must be stated accurately, conservatively, and definitely. Theaters are expected to live within their service necessities and to concentrate on bringing the war to an early successful conclusion rather than to insist on service units that will simply help to make life a little more pleasant. Strong agitation is underway in the War Department regarding economy in the use of forces and all requests for troops will be stringently scrutinized.14
The reports and correspondence quoted above appear to suggest disagree
ments both in the theater and in Washington with regard to service troops.
General Somervell and preceding ASP visitors from the United States reported
a serious, if not desperate, shortage of service personnel; and in the thea
ter Colonel Wilson, Chief of Transportation, as well as Colonel Chamberlain,
Chief of Staff, USAFIA, had been emphatic in their requests for service
troops. On the other hand, Gen. Arthur H. Wilson had perceived so little
need for service troops that he had recommended the disbanding of the port
- 487
"battalions already in the theater; and 15 months later the unidentified
echelon in SWPA that prepared a report for General Somervell did not take
the occasion to represent the theater's need for service troops as urgent
or desperate. The theater, for reasons not stated, had preferred to con
tinue giving shipment priority to combat troops, which when received were
actually employed as service troops when needed. In Washington, G-3, in
opposition to ASF, was evidently disposed to hold the ratio of service to
combat troops at a minimum; but General Somervell's notification to USASOS
in December 1942 that TC troops were available, studied in conjunction with
the requisition submitted later in the month by the theater, suggests that
SWPA could have obtained more TC troops by giving them sufficient priority.
In July 1943 the theater requisitioned 4,400 "replacements" for the
10 0}l boat companies (a number sufficient not only to replace turnover but
to expand the companies), and on 12 August General MacArthur indicated his
need for a total of 5,200 men in such units by the end of 1943 and for
5,100 additional men during 1944, besides 1,800 replacements for 1944. On
1 September 1943 ASF reported that no replacements for the boat companies
would be available before December, since no provision had been made for
training such personnel in the United States; that four additional port
battalions (besides the 373d, 387th, 394th, 489th, and 491st, already in
the theater) would be available for SWPA by the end of the year; and that
if other forces were considered necessary the theater should submit the
necessary recosanendations with the priorities desired. These conditions
were transmitted to General MacArthur on 17 September 1943. On 22 Septem
ber ASP received an inquiry from the General Staff asking whether the 4,400
replacements requested by General MacArthur would be available in or after
- 483
December, and was informed that 1,622 of the required total had already
been supplied and that the Military Personnel Division, ASF, stated that
the remaining 2,342 would be furnished by 1 January 1944. Training facil
ities for this personnel were lacking; the Training Division, ASF, mentioned
that the personnel required was not included in the current troop basis and
that the Transportation Corps was therefore not authorized to establish
training facilities; but GSUSA was expected to direct the action necessary
to meet General MacArthur's requirements. This directive was evidently
given, though documentary proof of the fact is not found. On 20 October
1943 the theater reported that "urgent need" still existed for all labor
units allocated to the theater on the basis of 1943 troop requisitions,
that the shortage of port battalions was "particularly acute," that the
boat companies had been "brought up to strength" at the expense of other
units, and that this procedure could not be continued. On 13 December ASF
reported that 600 TC replacements shipped in November and December completed
the boat-company replacements requested for 1943 and that of the 11 port
battalions requested for 1943 eight were in the theater or en route and
15the remaining 3 would be shipped in December.
Lack of records makes it impossible at present to trace in detail the
changes in the port personnel situation after 1943. & table compiled in
the theater indicates that the following 28 organizations utilized in port
Since Appendix 41 is compiled from scattered and incidental references, it
is probable that other port organizations had arrived in the theater before
the end of 1944. Evidently the number of port organizations in the theater
was at least tripled during the year.
According to a memorandum of G-4, GHQ, SWPA, 28 August 1944, "Service
troops available to this theater, in proportion to combat troops, have
always been and still are below the desired number based on War Department
policy of service elements to combat elements* Expedients have been used
in the past, the principal one being the employment of combat troops for
labor details. This feature is common in this theater at all bases and
supply points,M To meet requirements for projected Philippine operations,
G-4 planned to train all personnel in port companies as winch operators
and hatch and hold foremen, and to augment the companies with combat troopsi
"not required for operational purposes at the time," to work under super
vision of the permanent port-company troops. The policy was designed to
be continued till Filipino labor became available to replace the combat
troops. According to the USASOS cargo-handling manual of 15 December 1944
the technical training necessary to qualify all port-company personnel for
supervisory duties was directed by the Commanding General, USASOS, in July
- 490
1944, and required from two to three months. On completion of training a
company was augmented by 300 combat troops. Under the "expansion scheme"
each port company supplied more than twice the normal number of technicians
without increase in the number of technician grades. It was admitted that
technicians not given technician grades might become dissatisfied.17
During the first nine months of 1945, as shown by Appendix 41, the
number of port units in SWPA was greatly increased, not only by arrivals
from the United States but by transfers from the South Pacific Area and
from the European and Mediterranean theaters of operation. At the same
time the Army employed Filipino labor on a large scale for port operations.
In May the theater undertook to reorganize port companies in three platoons
of five hatch gangs each, to enable one company to work a five-hatch vessel
1 ftin three eight-hour shifts.
After V-J Day the volume of cargo-handling did not decline abruptly.
Months of work remained in "rolling up the rear" and in shipping cargo to
Japan and Korea or back to the United States. Departure of port units from
the theater, as shown by Appendix 41, began in October 1945 on a large
scale; and most of the units remaining were inactivated in the theater
during the first five months of 1946.
From details mentioned above or included in Appendix 41, it is apparent
that many port units were activated in the theater, with personnel assembled
from whatever sources were available, and that port units were augmented
with combat troops. These conditions required the theater to provide train
ing in port operations. Such training became extensive during 1943. The
Officer Candidate School, SWPA, was established on 15 November 1942, aad
TC instruction was first included in it in April 1943. Eventually the TC
- 491
course of study was made up of classes in water operations, stowage, rig
ging, types of ships, air, rail, and motor transportation, Army administra
tion, Army supply, amphibious operations, armament, mathematics, cargo con
trol, transportation logistics, and troop movements; but the course in gen
eral was described as "a "broad training ... with an emphasis on water trans
portation*" By March 1944 230 men (including 15 negroes and 1 Filipino)
had been graduated from the TC course and commissioned as second lieuten
ants. Special courses for enlisted men were established in various ports
as required by local conditions. In the summer of 1945 the increasing
turnover within port units was expected to result in almost complete replace
ment of personnel within many units after V-J Day. A Training Division was
established in the Office of the Chief of Transportation, AJWESPAC, in July
1945 and was discontinued on 2 January 1946, when its functions were trans
ferred to the Personnel Division. The Training Division formulated doc
trine, prepared and reviewed materials for the organization and training
of TC units, and inspected training procedures at TC field installations.
During the first week in October 1945 a course in port operations for newly
assigned officers was conducted at Manila, including lectures on the organ
ization, functions, and missions of the port, the specific operations of
port divisions, the essentials of stevedoring and use of gear, and a tour
of port facilities. The 2d Major Port Harbor Craft School was activated
at Manila 5 October 1945 to train deck crews, engine crews, and mechanics
as replacements for departing harbor craft companies; the course, presented
on the concrete barge BCL 3065, consisted of one week of class work and
three weeks of shop training. The school was discontinued on 24 November,
after which date all replacement personnel in harbor craft companies was
- 492
trained "on the job." T h e T r a a 8 i t A c c ( m n t i n g Brajlch S c h o o l f o p
checkers was opened in Manila in September 1945, and by 13 October had
graduated 80 men, who had received instruction in.use of disposition sheets,
booking lists, filling out cargo tallies, prevention of pilferage, and re
cognition of service color markings. By the end of October 1945 the Mater
ial Handling Equipment Division school for forklift operators had trained
about 450 enlisted men in addition to civilians. Other short-lived schools
were established at various times and places to meet temporary needs.19
The wide dispersion of ports in the theater, the comparatively small
volume of traffic in most of them (particularly in New Guinea), and the
rapid fluctuation of traffic in a port tended to change repeatedly the
number and identity of companies controlled by a battalion headquarters,
to necessitate the assignment of two or three companies to ports too small
to require a battalion headquarters, and even to bring about the assignment
of single platoons to ports remote from those in which their companies were
stationed* The theater reported on 13 January 1943 that a need was already
developing for "composite service units for assignment to small ports, so
equipped and organized as to enable one unit to perform the various supply
and service functions peculiar to any one service". This need was ulti
mately met by T/O&E 55-500, Transportation Corps Service Organization, 17
August 1943, authorizing the establishment of TC composite platoons, com
panies, and battalions, redesignated on 29 September 1944 as TC service
platoons, companies, and battalions. From this table the theater could
order whatever numbers, kinds, and combinations of large or small groups
were needed for the various requirements of different ports. Appendix 41
suggests that the theater made no use of these units before the middle of
- 493
1944, and that they were always outnumbered "by earlier types of units.
Frequently, however, port companies and amphibian truck companies, not
included in T/O&E 55-500, were assigned to service "battalions.
Only occasional comments are found concerning the performance of
particular units, and these comments are not consistent. In March 1943
one observer remarked that the actual strength of the 394th Port Battalion
at Port Moresby was reduced to about 300 by "sickness and jail#" The men,
in gangs of 20, worked in 6-hour shifts (6 hours on and 12 hours off)
around the clock. A ship's officer who visited Port Moresby found each
shift under a white captain, with a negro lieutenant and a negro sergeant
assigned to each gang, The sergeants worked in the holds and "appeared
to know their business*" The officer was informed that the enlisted men
were discouraged by rumors (later proved correct) that they would be kept
at their v/ork till the Japanese were defeated. •*•
Another visitor to Port Moresby (2d Lt. Burton A. Garlinghouse) re
ported in January 1944 that discipline and supervision were excellent, that
the men worked steadily, efficiently, and cheerfully, and that they seemed
to take considerable pride in their work. At Milne Bay the same observer
found the enlisted men "poorly organized, undisciplined, and untrained,"
with little interest in their work. At Oro Bay he noted that on ships dis
charging in the stream the men worked "intermittently and inefficiently"
and that the noncommissioned officers in charge "either made no effort or
were unable to control the men," who ignored suggestions from the ship's
officers and the cargo security officer. This observer commented as follows:
I found the morale in these groups rather low, a condition which is easily explained and understood. Living conditions, especially in Hew Guinea, are very unsatisfactory and there is the ever-present threat of
- 494
tropical disease. Cargo handling is heavy and monotonous work, and is especially taxing for white men unaccustomed to the climate. An indifferent, or even rebellious, "What-the-hell" attitude is very common, as are idling and slacking on the jot). There is ... more or less continuous petty pilferage of cargo ond ship's property. The military police make little serious effort to prevent this and only blatant and obvious offenses are likely to be reported by them. They are far more interested in gossiping with crew members and in getting hand-outs from the galley. Officers find threats of discipline and court martial ineffective, for, they say, there is a general feeling that no punishment can be much worse than regular duty under these conditions. Recreational facilities in the island ports are limited, especially for colored soldiers, and a work schedule of 6 hours on and 12 hours off, with routine military duties to be crowded into the off hours, leaves little or no time for recreation or for anything but sleeping and eating. Most discouraging of all for those who have been stationed in this area for a year or more is the expressed policy of the present high command which gives them no hope of being relieved before the end of the war, and their knowledge of the situation precludes any optimism on this subject.^-a
With regard to these charges a former port commander of Oro Bay re
marks that they appear to rest on limited observation and hasty general
ization. Instances of each of the conditions complained of could have
been found. Pilferage was not completely absent from this or any other
port. A few of the insufficient number of military police were lax and
required replacement. Some port workers, as in any other port, incurred
punishment for idling on the job. Units differed somewhat in efficiency,
according to their history and background. It was not true, however, that
threats of discipline and court martial were ineffective or that "morale"
was lacking. Tith regard to the two port units at Oro Bay referred to
above, the master of the Lewis Dyche, after several days in that port,
described the work of the 387th ana 491st Port Battalions as "excellent"
and above "many ports back in the States. The amount of tonnage handled
as well as the careful way of handling compares with any port in the
States.n2Vo
After visiting several New Guinea ports an observer from Washington
charged in December 1944 that "the maximum productive capacity is not
being obtained from the labor troops available.11 In a single base some
operations might have more labor than they needed while others were short.
There was confusion as to responsibility for supervision over casual labor.
The unit's officers frequently feel they have completed their responsibilities when they deliver their men to the dock or warehouse. Likewise the junior officer in charge in the warehouse or on the dock hesitates to supervise and order about strange men. ... There is the almost universal complaint as to the little work put out by certain labor troops. It is stated they are completely lacking in morals. They just won't work. Punishment means nothing. Their officers are afraid of them, etc. My observation would indicate that these complaints are only too well founded. Nevertheless, I don't believe that everything possible has been done to get the maximum out of these troops. No where did I see any attempt made to appeal to their spirit of pride, imagination or love of competition. No where did I see the men even told of their daily production or the production of the gang on the next dock. Daily posting of production figures, painted thermometers, showing output, take little effort. But the results may be astounding, particularly if the leading gang gets a few extra privileges or maybe an extra case of beer a month. ... We should not have to use such appeals on soldiers* But these men are not soldiers, they are civilians in uniform. Such methods do work with civilians.22
On the other hand, a cargo security officer who visited Tacloban in
November 1944 reported that the men "worked long hours, efficiently, and
frequently with real enthusiasm." Several months later another visitor
to Tacloban found the 6O8th Port Company "tired and worn out." At least
80 percent of the stevedores were combat troops "who had been returned
from Luzon for a rest at Tacloban." These men, supervised by and mingled
with a port company, seemed "tired, weary, and inexperienced in the busi
ness of handling cargo The combat troops worked with interest for
a day or two because of the novelty of the job, but slacked off later and
openly griped that they were not being given a fair deal."23 These cita
tions, like those that precede, suggest that ports and units varied among
themselves and at different times, and that sweeping judgments should be
avoided*
- 496
The assignment of port units to, and their transfer from, particular
ports occurred with such frequency, and available' records of such movements
are so fragmentary, that it is not feasible to consider the identity of
the units stationed at particular ports or to list the ports at which a
given unit was successively stationed. These deficiencies in information,
joined to lack of information regarding the uses actually made of the three
port headquarters (2d, 22d, and 23d) and the five port detachments (A, B,
C, D, and E), ignorance of the number and proportion of combat troops
employed at each port in handling cargo, and ignorance of the types of
work really done by each unit in each port, make it virtually impossible
at present to base any assertion regarding military port personnel in SWPA
on a foundation of solid and indisputable fact.
Civilian Port Labor
Available information concerning civilian labor handling U. S. Army
cargo in the Southwest Pacific Area, and concerning the pilferage of such
cargo by both civilian and military labor, is derived entirely from American
sources. Much of the information consists of reports of irritating inci
dents observed by cargo security officers and masters of vessels, with their
indignant comments. In the absence of any general or comprehensive study
of the subject by the U. S. Army, and of information from Australian and
Philippine sources, it would be injudicious to draw conclusions from the
data collected. On the other hand, the available evidence is so abundant
and consistent that it cannot be disregarded.
On 6 February 1942, as already mentioned, General Marshall, Chief of
Staff, stated the policy that as few service troops as possible should be
- 497
sent to Australia. He directed the Commanding General, USAFIA, to use
local labor "to the fullest extent possible" for stevedoring and all other
24purposes in which Australian labor could be substituted for soldiers.
This policy of the United States Army toward Australian labor was continued
throughout the war. In New Guinea, on the other hand, most stevedoring
necessarily was done by troops, for the native population was sparse and
untrained. In northern ports of Australia and particularly in New Guinea
the Australian Army assigned several of its units for such work. In the
Philippines the ports were operated by both civilians and service troops.
Yfages, hours, and working conditions of all labor in Australia were
controlled by the Commonwealth Government, which allocated labor among
competing military and civilian services. The U. S. Array accepted Austra
lian labor standards "to the extent compatible with United States laws and
regulations." When labor trouble developed at Melbourne in April 1942 the
Army proposed to import troops to handle American cargo in Australian ports,
but was assured by the Commonwealth C-overnment that the labor requirements
of the Army would be met. Australia appointed a Stevedoring Commission,
which formulated a "register control system" for stevedores and dock workers,
to coordinate the employment of such labor and to disqualify workers who
were inefficient or "belligerent." The Commission, in an administration
elected by organized labor, had no power to enforce policies rejected by
the unions. The longshoremen of Australia were organized in "a strong
militant, articulate union," the Waterfront Workers Federation. In April
1943 more than 4,000 members of the Federation went on strike at Sydney in
protest against new regulations of the Stevedoring Commission. According
to one observer there had been several occasions before March 1943 when
- 493
authorities at Canberra, receiving a complaint from the Waterfront Workers
Federation telephoned Headquarters, USASOS, within half an hour, demanding
corrective action.
The U. S. Army did not employ Australian labor directly "but dealt
with Australian stevedoring firms, which secured laborers from the unions.
In March 1943 there were from 4,000 to 5,000 registered long-shoremen at
Melbourne, from 2,500 to 3,200 (possibly 5,000) at Sydney, from 1,400 to
1,700 at Brisbane, 529 at Townsville, and 330 at Cairns — a total of from
8,700 to 12,500. They worked in gangs that differed in size from port to
port, averaging 17 men to the gang at Melbourne, 20 at Sydney, 15 to 20 at
Brisbane, 15 to 22 at Townsville, and about 17 at Cairns. The best man
power of Australia was in the Australian Army and Navy, and most of the
dock labor was "old, tired and physically unfit." Its rate of performance
was estimated in March 1943 at 6 or 8 weight tons per gang per hour (a gang
to a hatch) at Melbourne, 9 tons at Sydney, 10 at Brisbane, and 5 at Towns
ville. In April 1943 the average rate of performance at Brisbane, Sydney,
Townsville, Cairns, and Auckland (New Zealand) was estimated at 8 tons
per gang-hour, and the Army did not expect this rate to be exceeded by
Australian civilians. In May 1943 the rate was stated to be from 5 to 9
tons per hour, and in June 1944 Col. Thomas G. Plant, formerly Chief Trans
portation Officer, USASOS, declared that the average had fallen from 9 in
1942 to 5 in 1944. In contrast to these workers, untrained American sol
diers could unload as much as 25 tons per hatch per hour.2
The low rate of performance of Australian stevedores during the war
was not due entirely to their age or debility. They were described as
"casual, mercenary, and indifferent.» As long as Australia itself was
_ A QQ —
threatened with invasion they were not entirely unwilling to exert them
selves; but after the Battle of the Coral Sea the Hsocial-gains-must-be
kept, business-and-work-as-usual school" was dominant, and the flow of
Army and Navy cash, bringing unprecedented sums of money to Australia,
did not increase the efficiency of labor. Stevedores would not work in
the rain but drew pay for standing by. On 12 October 1942 the stevedores
left the Francis Lewis in Sydney Harbor because of rain* Two days later
the stevedores agreed to work in the rain if the Army would provide boots,
oilskins, and hatch tents. The Army promised these, but officials of the
union vetoed the agreement. Enlisted men went aboard the vessel and dis
charged it at almost twice the stevedores" rate. An Australian newspaper
compared the "conditions under which the stevedores would condescend to
work and those under which the soldiers of Australia were fighting at the
moment. "^7
This "Battle of Sydney" had no lasting effect, and the use of American
soldiers sometimes resulted in strikes. Australian stevedores repeatedly
refused to handle refrigerated cargo, and might unpredictably refuse to
handle other special cargoes. As late as September 1945, when the William
Leavitt arrived at Sydney with a cargo of sorghum seed, the stevedores
alleged that the cargo was infested with mites and demanded extra pay for
handling it. The Army refused; the stevedores struck for 7 days, and all
7essels in the port were delayed; the stevedores returned to work for half
a day and struck again for 5 days in objection to the use of mechanical
cargo-handling gear to load Army ships. By 28 September, when the strike
ended at Sydney., it had spread to other Australian ports and to Tasmania;
and stevedores in all ports refused to unload Dutch vessels on which
- 500
Indonesian seamen were on strike. These and other strikes and walkouts
required the use of combat troops, American and Australian, on the docks,
and sometimes made it necessary to hold such troops in reserve to insure
the movement of urgent cargo. In April 1944, when immediate movement of
certain vessels was imperative, the Army held a passenger train in readi
ness to move troops to the docks at Sydney in case of rain.28
Wages for dock labor were set by a single contract for all of Aus
tralia, modified from port to port to suit local conditions. The basic
wage was from 65 to 75 cents an hour, but it had little meaning because
much of the work was done on overtime, premium, and penalty rates. In
October 1943 the hours from 8 A.M. to 5 P*M. were considered as ordinary
time, from 6 P.M. to 9 P.M. as ordinary overtime, and from 9 P.M. to 7
A.M. ss. extra overtime. Australian law required any vessel arriving in
Australia to be worked around the clock, with the result that a vessel
could not be unloaded without payment of overtime rates. Saturday after
noons, Sundays, and the numerous holidays (including 10 or 12 days at
Christmas and several at Easter) were treated as overtime. Premium and
penalty cargoes were defined by contract, and particular cargoes were
often so defined by the workmen who unloaded them. One effect of the high
wages resulting from this system was that workers often took vacations of
a week or 10 days after 3 or 4 weeks of work. Of the 529 registered long
shoremen at Townsville about 100 were always absent. In 1945 the Director
of Shipping, Commonwealth of Australia, with the concurrence of AWESPAC,
discontinued the loading and unloading of vessels on weekends, because
wharf laborers had become accustomed to working at double and triple rates
29 on weekends and refusing to work during the rest of the week.
- 501
Workers were not actually at work during all the hours for which
they were paid. As already mentioned, they did not work in the rain.
They waited in the morning until the gang was complete, one man who missed
a streetcar delayed 15 or 20 men who were idle till he arrived, and work
rarely started less than 45 minutes after a shift "began. A "smoke-o" of
15 minutes was allowed in the morning and i*a the afternoon, but usually
an hour elapsed before the last man returned. Another break in working
hours was required by the "tea-o.w The men quit work for lunch about
11:45 and returned about 1:15, and at the end of the shift they left from
10 to 20 minutes early. Colonel Plant estimated that the actual working
time of a shift was about 5 hours. Workers slept on the job, especially
at night, and there seemed to be no authority requiring them to keep awake.30
Such incidents and opinions as the following were frequently reported*
On one occasion the slowness of workers loading the Fred C. Ainsworth forced
patients consigned to the ship for return to the United States to wait in
ambulances on the dock as long as four hours, and when only five or ten
minutes1 work remained, all longshoremen went ashore for their "smoke-o"
while the patients continued to wait. Officers of the Cape Flattery.
docked at Townsville in May 1943, reported that an American Army sentry
standing guard in the sun over a cargo on a Townsville dock was baited by
eight dock workers resting in the shade with such remarks as "You are a
G-~ E — bloody fool- to be in the Army for $50 when you could be home safe
and sound in the shipyards and make lots of money." In spite of these and
other taunting remarks the sentry "kept a firm grip on his temper." Amer
ican officers walking the streets of Townsville alone at night were beaten
by the Australian Home Guard. Among families of Australian service men
- 502
and middle-class Australians there was alleged to be "a concert of inter
ests and a determined hostility to the government which conciliates the
•wharfies1 and kindred slackers," as well as a belief that "throwing out
the Labor Government is not impossible by any means." By December 1943
"the laboring classes of Australia" were said to resent the presence of
Americans, and every American serviceman interviewed by officers of the
Fred C. Ainsworth was eager to leave Australia. It was complained that
Army personnel was not authorized to protect itself against the insolence
of vaterside workers, whose arrogance, inefficiency, and thievishness were
encouraged by "the conciliatory attitude of the U. S. Army high command."31
Before 17 July 1942 the Australian "orkers Federation had made an
agreement with the Australian Government that military labor would not be
used on the waterfront if civilian labor was "available and willing." The
Federation had also inquired of Mr. Harry Bridges whether the 385th QJ4
Battalion (Port), which included a number of men from the International
Longshoremen's and Y/arehousemen1 s Union, enlisted as volunteers, would re
place civilian longshoremen in Australia* Questioned on this point, the
San Francisco Port of Embarkation replied that military necessity would
32dictate where and how the unit would be used. No evidence is found that
this or any other American unit was employed in Australia without consent
of the Commonwealth Government.
The use of civilian stevedores was directed by General MacArthur in
keeping with the policy prescribed by General Marshall on 6 February 1942.
Lieutenant Colonels Parry and Lehnau, after visiting Australia in April
1943, disclaimed any intent to criticize the policy, "because it may be
absolutely necessary," but suggested that much greater use should be made
- 503
of service troops to speed turnaround. Lieutenant Colonel Lehnau reported
informally on 22 May 1943 that the labor situation was "as bad and worse
than the reports indicate" and that General MacArthur had refrained from
using port "battalions "by request of the Commonwealth Government. The Army
was obliged to keep "a delicate balance" in its joint use of Australian
resources and facilities, and to "hold itself on a tight rein" in its rela
tions with a government controlled by unions. No further discussion of
the reasons for this policy is found; but it may be pointed out that the
theater was unable to obtain sufficient port troops even for New Guinea
ports, and that the operation of such troops in the Australian Zone of
Interior against the wishes of a friendly government would have amounted
to an occupation by military force.^
Numbers of Chinese and Indonesian refugees collected in Australia.
Most of this foreign labor was segregated in Brisbane as a foreign colony,
and employed in the Army's repair and assembly plant there or as crews for
Army vessels. Little if any of such labor was engaged in stevedoring. On
2 February 1942 the Commanding General, USAFIA, proposed to import 25,000
laborers from the Netherlands Uar>t Indies, but evidently this plan was not
carried out.
iTative labor in New Guinea was described as limited in numbers,
totally unskilled, and "exceedingly low in the scale of civilization."
The available supply was controlled and allocated by the Australians
through MGAU (Australian New Guinea Administrative Unit) and was employed
chiefly as carriers on land. Use of native stevedoring was "negligible."
The Papuan natives, however, gave "loyal support and wholehearted cooper
ation" to the Allied forces, carrying heavy loads of supplies and ammunition
- 504
from the beach, loading barges for shipment, helping to build roads and
bridges, clearing brush, and acting as guides.34
Before the war an ordinary Filipino stevedoring gang consisted of 16
men — a £abo. (hatch foreman), a checker, 7 antiguos (men with more than
5 years of experience), and 7 modernos- The proportion of antiguos and
modernos, and the size of a gang could be changed when necessary. The hatch
gangs working a vessel were controlled by a capataz. and the checkers were
supervised by a head checker. A capataz was paid from 120 to 220 pesos a
month, a cabo 3.25 pesos a day, an antigao 2.25 pesos a day, and a mo demo
1.75 pesos a day. This pay scale was maintained by the Army during the
reconquest of the Philippines.
The Army, as the direct employer of Filipino stevedores, had various
responsibilities. The stevedores had been idle since the end of 1941 and
were weak from undernourishment. In Leyte, at the beginning of January
1945, 60.3 percent of the port laborers employed by the Army worked less
than a week and some worked only 1 day or less. The Army offered a bonus
of 10 pounds of rice to every man who worked every day in the week, and the
number of men working 7 full days increased from 241 for the week ending 20
January 1945, before the bonus was offered, to 487 for the following week,
when the bonus was in effect. At Manila, in March, the men walked several
miles to and from work and stayed on the job 12 hours a day. Two meals of
rice and canned fish were provided for each shift. The men worked on Sun
days and holidays without overtime pay. It was noticed that the men handled
cargo with great care, and on their own initiative would sew up torn bags
of rice. At Lingayen Gulf, in May, a diversion of the civilian labor sup
ply was threatened by owners of rice fields, who normally provided housing,
- 505
rations, and credit for seasonal workers. To keep the manpower required
for operating the port, the Army planned to provide tents, cots, "blankets,
mess gear, and regular meals.00
Considerable time passed before Filipino labor demanded concessions
such as had been made to labor elsewhere. At last, on 1 February 1946,
some 12,000 civilian stevedores and dock workers at Manila went on strike.
The majority were members of the Union de Obreros Estivedores de Filipinas,
which included not only stevedores but mechanics, drivers, and others.
They demanded a 50-percent bonus for overtime work, a 100-percent bonus
for work on Sundays and holidays and at night, and a doubling of normal
wages. They were joined in the strike by 100 employees of Santa Ana Ship-
ways on 2 February, by 5,000 employees of Quarterraaster depots on 6 Febru
ary , by 123 employees of Elizalda Rope Factory on 7 February, and by 3,000
employees of Engineer Island on 8 February. AFV/ESPAC operated the port
with troops and offered a 20-percent increase in pay, with time and a half
for hours above 40 a week and for Sundays and holidays. These terms were
rejected. On 12 February the Army turned over the work of unloading and
loading cargo to the Luzon Stevedoring Company, headed by Col. Edward M.
G-rimm. The company employed the striking workers at a 50-percent increase
in wages, and the strike ended on 14 February. Thereafter the Army dealt
37 through the Luzon Stevedoring Company and did not hire stevedores directly.
Pilferage
Property of the United States Army and of its personnel was constantly
stolen in ports throughout the Southwest Pacific, and no appreciable pro
gress was made in protecting property or punishing thieves. TC officers
- 506
tried to safeguard cargo for which they were responsible, but pilferage
was not checked.
It was particularly common in Australia. It VJP.S "rampant" at Mel
bourne in 1942, when military police, insufficient in numbers, untrained
and unarmed, uere unable to protect cargo, end the Army wc.s obliged to
ask the help of Commonwealth police "to control American personnel.'1 On
18 July 1942 an Ordnance officer at Melbourne reported that five trucks
equipped as maintenance and repair shops hod been "thoroughly and effi
ciently rifled"; all the tool kits had been opened; rust scratches showed
that some of the tool chests had been open for several days, r-nd new
scratches end freshly split v/ood indicated that others had been ran
sacked more recently, suggesting that the trucks hr.d been pillaged by
different persons and at different places; both American p.nd Australian
cigarette butts were found in the trucks; and stolen items included flash
chisels, pliers, and leather gloves. Fo guards hr.d been pieced on the
trucks. It was reported on 17 October 1942 that "extensive thefts" were
made at piers, in transit from piers, in warehouses, and on freight trains;
that "every effort" was made by the Army to reduce this pilferage, but
with "very inadequate cooperation" from civilian authorities; that more
gurrds were needed for Army property; and that a loss of from Ig- to 2 per
cent must be expected Min those classes of supplies which r-xe susceptible
of civilian use." Pilferage was described on 6 Mcxch 1943 as "heavy and
constant"; Australian labor would stop work or strike when prmed guards
were stationed to watch the handling of cargo; ?.nd an attempted theft of
articles worth fifty pounds would be punished with a fine of from three
- 507
to ten shillings.38
On 14 March 1943 USASOS issued a directive concerning the "serious
problem" of pilferage. U. S. Army supplies were stolen on ships and
wharves, in warehouses and post exchanges, in rail yards, and in motor
trucks and rail cars. Theft was encouraged "by lack of supervision, lack
of accurate tally sheets and failure to check tally sheets, lack of check
ers in warehouses and on wharves, failure to keep pilferable supplies in
locked containers, and employment of "criminal and irresponsible people.11
Base section commanders were directed to take several kinds of action,
(l) All losses were to be reported to provost marshals, who should act
promptly and if necessary should call upon the Australian military police,
the civilian police, and the customs officials. (2) Civilians should be
required before employment to sign an agreement that they would submit to
search at any time at their place of employment or upon entering or leav
ing it. (3) Employees detected in theft should be summarily dismissed
and, on sufficient evidence, reported for criminal proceedings. (4) Tally
sheets should be checked carefully, not perfunctorily. A load already
tallied out should be checked at suitable points in transit. Supplies
were often added after a load was dispatched and were removed before it
was delivered. Checking at the wharf entrance would prevent dropping of
supplies from the wharf or the ship to be picked up by small boats. (5)
Military police should be placed in each hatch as well as on the wharves
during unloading. (6) Broken packages and cases (perhaps broken inten
tionally) should be instantly tallied and removed to locked enclosures.
(7) Employees should eat outside their place of employment and not take
lunch baskets or lunch boxes into the warehouse or the ship. Otherwise
- 508
the baskets or boxes should be kept in a locked enclosure away from sup
plies, and should be inspected at proper times.39
Evidence accumulated that these instructions were not sufficient or
were not enforced. In October 1943 the transit depot area at Sydney was
inclosed with barbed wire, outer windows were covered with wire netting,
and four sentry boxes were installed; but these were manned by civilians
who were not closely supervised and did not wear arm bands or other marks
of authority. The theater reported on 3 October 1943 that "supply dis
cipline" was not good, particularly in smaller units of the Army. Unduly
large replacement requisitions were received for articles such as soap,
hand tools, stencil outfits, and mess outfits, which the Quartermaster,
USASOS, believed were finding their way into the "black market." On 1
November 1943 the Commanding General, Fifth Air Force, reported that pil
ferage of Air Force supplies was "very serious." By this time the Chief
of Transportation, ASF, had established a system of placing cargo security
officers aboard all vessels carrying a thousand tons or more of Army cargo
for all shipments originating at ports of embarkation.
Reports of the cargo security officers merely confirmed previous con
clusions. A cargo security officer who visited Brisbane on the Peter de
Smet, 10 October 1943, noted that military police guarding the wharves
were armed only with wooden billies because the Federal Waterside Workers
had threatened a general strike if the military police on wharves wore
firearms. The cargo security officer on the Fred 0. Ainsworth, which un
loaded at Brisbane in October and November 1943, referred to this threat
and to a strike called because a military policeman had struck a long
shoreman. Insufficient numbers of military police were stationed on the
- 509
dock and in the vessel. The cargo security officer did not see anyone
asked to show credentials at the pier entrance. Breakage, according to
this officer, was
heavy, deliberate and accompanied by much pilferage. One longshoreman told the informant that he already had his Christinas dinner hanging in his refrigerator, a ham and three ducks which he had gotten from some ship, A number of sacks of salvaged shoes were being loaded on the vessel but were first opened on the pier and the better ones retained by the workers. This was all done in the open and no attempt was made to stop this pilfering. These longshoremen seemed to have the idea that anything they handled was their property. The effects of all dead, plainly marked as such, were broken into and everything of value taken, including buttons and insignia.4^
The cargo security officer on the William S. Ladd. which docked at
Brisbane in November 1943, was informed that a shortage of military police
made it impossible to supply guards for hatches and gangplanks. Inspec
tion of credentials was "superficial and perfunctory." Theft was "prac
tically continuous," and the sale of stolen Army property was said to be
a profitable business in Brisbane. Stolen Army knives were offered for
sale publicly and displayed in Brisbane show windows as "Yankee jungle
knives." Customs authorities were "apathetic in their attitude" when
Australian laborers were involved. According to the Brisbane Courier-Mail
of 13 November 1943, the triennial conference of the Waterside Workers
Federation was about to request the Commonwealth Government to refrain
from action under the civil code against members guilty of pilfering, and
to delegate the punishment of all such members to the Federation, applying
its own disciplinary code. Offenders reported by ships' officers or the
cargo security officer were merely reprimanded and returned to work. In
the presence of the cargo security officer, when cases of secret radar
equipment were to be unloaded, dock workers and stevedores refused to work
- 510
until the soldiers guarding these cases were disarmed. The cargo security
officer protested but was informed by the superintendent of the Water Di
vision "that it was necessary for the time being to comply with these
demands." In a recent interview the superintendent referred to has con
firmed this remark. It was a literal statement of fact. Stationing of
Army personnel in the hatches, arming of military police on the wharves,
and searching of Australian laborers as they left the ships or the wharves
would have produced a strike, and this, when U. S. Army labor was not
available, would have halted all cargo operations in Brisbane.4**
The cargo security officer on the James D. Doty, which visited Bris
bane and Cairns in November and December 1943, reported that a watch was
stolen in the hold at Brisbane from a package of registered mail. Two
Australian stevedores were suspected, but the Union declined to give their
names, the civilian police declined to investigate (on the grounds that
"their presence aboard the vessel would precipitate a strike"), the two
men disappeared, and no search for them was made. No military police
"were available at any time" during the unloading. Transit sheds and
wharves were unguarded. Stevedores caught pilfering and taken to a civil
ian court escaped with a light fine. Crates were broken open in the un
guarded holds, stevedores carried away what they wanted in their clothes,
and empty crates were smashed and removed unnoticed in the dunnage. Men
exempted from conscription by reason of their longshore duties seemed to
be the worst offenders. The port of Cairns, according to this observer,
was better managed than that of Brisbane; armed military police were
43 "plentiful" and little thievery was accomplished.
On 4 June 1944, under the caption "Looters Hob Men War Cargoes —
- 511
Pillagingftives Bad Name to Queensland,M the Brisbane Sunday Mail stated
that on a Brisbane wharf were some hundreds of containers partly filled
with jungle rations intended for Hew Guinea, each container broken open
to remove ten cigarettes. Cases of whisky were dropped until bottles
broke and the contents were drained into cans. Men often became drunk
when working on liquor cargoes, and one entire gang had to be paid off
because too drunk to continue unloading a ship. Razor blades, candy, and
clothing were favorite objects of theft. The cargoes of single ships suf
fered losses by pillage in excess of £3,000. Shipping men recommended
that all persons convicted of pillaging should be jailed and that the
Waterside Employment Committee, composed of workers1 and employers1 repre
sentatives, should use its power to de-register such persons, depriving
them of the right to work at the waterfront anywhere in Australia. The
Army had recently formed a special guard to go into the holds as soon as
they were opened and to watch Army cargo closely until it was safely loaded
into transport vehicles. It is doubtful, however, whether this guard was
long permitted to function. Cargo continued to disappear Mat an alarming
rate."44
On 30 July 1944 USASOS planned to reissue the directive of 14 March
1943 with additions tending to transfer responsibility from USASOS to
ships1 officers and cargo security officers. The Chief Transportation
Officer, USASOS, in an accompanying memorandum to G-4, USASOS, observed
that the original directive had not been enforced, that the waterside
workers "appear to have won the day," and that "strong action by military
and civilian authorities alike" was required. The subject was "being
studied" in August 1944, when a "general tightening up" of supervision
- 512
was reported; but It is not clear that any new or effective action was
ever taken, or could have been taken, while the Army remained in Australia.45
Little complaint of pilferage came from New Guinea. Occasional theft
of post exchange supplies occurred at Port Moresby, but offenders were
severely punished. The military police, though "rather apathetic in their
attitude," examined passes and credentials conscientiously. At Oro Bay a
campaign against pilferage was carried on by transportation officers, but
no means was found of "arousing in the average EM any real feeling against
the practise on moral or patriotic grounds. Anything on a ship which is
portable is regarded as legitimate game — it is only wrong to be caught.
Ships visiting these ports must recognize this attitude and take the neces
sary precautions."^
Pilferage developed in the Philippines as soon as the Army arrived.
Military police were not usually provided to guard hatches or cargo at
Lingayen Gulf and Manila in the spring of 1945. In March 1945 a cargo
security officer at Lingayen Gulf procured the arrest of a merchant sea
man and four naval gunners who had pilfered cargo in their possession and
who said that stevedores of the 310th Port Company had given them 3^ tons
of supplies. These men, after three days of confinement on shore, were
released for "insufficient evidence." Philippine civilians would pay $5
a pound for sugar, $10 to $15 for cigarette lighters, and 50 cents to $1
a can for canned goods, and would barter their possessions for stolen
candy, food, or cigarettes. At this time cargo security officers could
not depend on ships1 officers or port company officers for "complete or
consistent assistance." Cargo security officers were urged to take prompt
and impartial action in every case of pilferage, however small; to remember
- 513
that they were not relieved of responsibility by the inaction of other
officers; and never to agree that even "a legitimately "broken case of
supplies" might "be appropriated for personal use, "Extensive pilferage11
of Army cargo was in progress in Manila Harbor in May 1945. No guards
were provided on ships, and the use of Filipino Scouts as guards was "not
particularly effective," It was "common practice" for men working in the
holds to break cartons of beer or candy and consume as much as they wanted.
Checkers on shipboard freely gave cases of beer to EUKW crews and recorded
the beer as "lost." The act of pilfering was "regarded as a joke rather
than a crime." The Filipinos, unlike the Americans, were inclined to break
into any boxes that they thought might contain rations, and often, being
unable to read the markings on boxes, would steal goods that were useless
to them. Stolen cigarettes were sold by storekeepers for about $7.50 a
. 47 carton.
Various measures were taken at Manila. On 20 October 1945 thfc 497th
Antiaircraft Gun Battalion was attached to Headquarters, APWESPAC, to dis
rupt "organized pilferage," which was still increasing. In December 1945
it was believed that gangs of armed thieves, called "snipers," were mingl
ing unrecognized with depot employees who feared to report them; and the
Provost Marshal opened a branch office in South Harbor. Routine arrests
were made throughout 1946. In October of that year, for instance, the
Provost Marshal arrested 210 persons, nearly all for theft of government
property, and recovered supplies worth 50,000 pesos.^
Volume of Army Cargo Handled
The only available statistics of volume of Army cargo loaded and un
- 514
loaded in ports of SWPA are tabulated in Appendices 42-46. Scattered
figures of earlier date than 1944 are found for a few ports, but are of
little value for comparative purposes. Examination of the tables indi
cates the following facts:
(1) The total tonnage of Army cargo handled in all ports of SWPA
varied little between February 1944 and January 1945, averaging less than
800,000 tons a month. The total exceeded 900,000 tons during each month
from February 1945 through October 1945, and exceeded 1,000,000 tons a
month during June, July, and August 1945, reaching a peak of 1,368,303
tons in August 1945. The total declined steadily after October 1945 ex
cept for a slight rally in January 1946. The first month in which the
total was less than that for February 1944 was December 1945. In February
1946 the total fell for the first time to less than half the total for
February 1944.
(2) Total tonnage handled in Australia reached a peak of 246,424 tons
in March 1944 and thereafter exceeded 200,000 tons only in April 1944 and
May 1945. It first fell below 100,000 tons in January and April 1945, and
remained below that total in all months subsequent to August 1945. Total
tonnage handled in New Guinea reached a peak of 693,111 tons in August 1944,
exceeded 500,000 tons in each month from March through December 1944, fell
abruptly in January and February 1945, remained without much change through
August 1945, fell again with extreme abruptness in September 1945, and
dwindled to 4,049 tons in April 1946. It exceeded the total tonnage handled
in Australia through August 1945, but in all except two months thereafter
was exceeded by Australia. Total tonnage handled in the Philippines and
Okinawa reached a peak of more than a million tons in July and August 1945,
- 515
and exceeded the comMned total of New Guinea and Australia in every month
subsequent to January 1945.
(3) Milne Bay was the port handling the largest quantity of Army cargo
in February and March 1944. It was succeeded by Finschhafen (April - Novem
ber 1944), Leyte (December 1944 - January 1945), Lingayen Gulf (February
- March 1945), and Manila (April 1945 - June 1946). The low position of
Hollandia and Biak is particularly to be noted.
(4) The migration of cargo-hand ling activity is shown in the following
list of ports, indicating the earliest and the latest of the three- single
months in which each port handled the largest quantity of cargo:
Port Moresby January 1944 - April 1944 Milne Bay January 1944 - July 1944 Lae March 1944 - June 1944 Finschhafen June 1944 - September 1944 Oro Bay July 1944 - September 1944 Hollandia August 1944 - December 1944 Biak October 1944 - March 1945 Leyte December 1944- July 1945 Lingayen February 1945- August 1945 Cebu July 1945 - September 1945 Manila July 1945 - October 1945 Batangas July 1945 - October 1945
Okinawa November 1945- February 1946
(5) Separate figures for discharge and loading show that by May 1945
loading exceeded discharge in each of the Australian and New Guinea ports.
In the Philippines and Okinawa loading first exceeded discharge at Leyte,
Gebu, and Lingayen in November 1945, at Manila and Batangas in May 1946,
and at Okinawa in June 1946.
Volume of cargo in relation to efficiency of handling will be dis
cussed in the final chapter of this study. Comparable figures for number
of passengers (including military personnel) discharged and loaded are
not available.
- 516
i^otes on Chapter IX
1. (1) Had ( p a r ) , ACofS G-4 GSUSA (Somervell) to CG USiiPIA, 4 Apr 42. In OCT 451.01-460 SWPA. (2) Bad, t r i n e Minis ter ' s Dept, Canberra, to AOSTIMPBO, 8 Nov 42, sub: l.'hexf Equipment. In OCT 413.7-452.41 SWPA, (3) Had, CG SOS to CG USASOS, 16 Dec 42, Cm-Out 5758. In OCT 401-451 SWPA. (4) Had, CG USASOS to CG SOS, 29 Dec 42, Cm-In 12511 (29 Dec 43) . Same f i l e . (5) Memo, Sec, Munitions Assignments Committee (Ground), Washington (Lt Col George 01msted), for ACofT SOS, 19 Jan 43, sub: Cargo-Handling Equipment for Aus t r a l i a . In OCT 413.7-452.41 SWPA. (6) Lt r , Chief, Administrat ive Div, OCT ASP, to CG USAPPE, 17 Mar 44, sub: 100-Ton Capacity Crawler Crane, and 2d ind thereon, AG USASOS to CG USA8TS, 9 Apr 44 . In OCT 413.8 SWPA. (7) L t r , Chief, Water Div, OCT ASP (Col R. M. Hicks) 9 to Asst Deputy Administrator, WSA, 24 Mar 45. In OCT 565.4 SWPA. (8) Had, CG USABTE to WD, 23 Apr 45, Cm-In 21363 (23 Aor 45) . In OCT 413.8 SWPA.
2 . Manual for Use i n Computing Cargo Handling Requirements, prepared by Office of the CTO USASOS, 15 Dec 44. Incl 7 to Rpt, Maj Mark C. Coll a r i n o , Overseas Operation Br, Planning Div, OCT ASP, to ACofT for Operat i o n s , ASP, 1 May 45 , sub: Notes on Trip from Washington to POA and SWPA, 19 March to 22 A p r i l . In OCT HB f i l e , POA.
2a. ( l ) Rpt, Deputy Direc tor , Storage Div, ASP (Col William C. Crosby), to Director of Supply, ISP, 12 Dec 44, sub: Report on Trip to Pacif ic Ocean Areas and Southwest Pac i f ic Area, par 15, and Exhibit 2 , par 16. App 2, Tab 4 to monograph, Appendices to Storage Operations, Dec 1941 - Dec 1945, prepared by Storage Div, ASP. In SSUSA HD f i l e . (2) Interviews with Col Russel l V. Perry , formerly Port Commander, Hollandia, and Lt Col Carrol Z. Moffatt, formerly Por t Commander, Oro Bay, 23 May 49.
3 . Manual for Use in Computing Cargo Handling Requirements, c i ted i n n. 2 . Port marine maintenance companies and army marine repair ship compan ie s , concerned only with maintenance and r epa i r , and depot companies, TO, concerned only with the recept ion, s torage, and issue of TC cargo at depots and storehouses, w i l l be discussed in other connections.
4 . (1) Memo, ACofS G-4 GSUSA for ACofS W?D GSUSA, 5 Jan 42, sub: Lack of Labor for Loading and Unloading at X. In GSUSA G-4, Transportation 3r f i l e , 000.900 Aus t ra l i a , Vol I . (2) Memo, ACofS G-4 GSUSA for ACofS G-3 GSUSA, 26 Jan 42, sub: Dispatch of Port Bat ta l ion to Aust ra l ia . Same f i l e . (3) Memo, Chief, Planning Br, G-4 GSUSA (Col W. M. Goodman), for Asst Executive for Operations, Supply Br, Transportation Br, and Construct i o n Br, G-4 GSUSA, 6 Feb 42, sub: Movement of 394th (#1 Bn (Po r t ) . In OCT HB f i l e , SWPA - Shipping. (4) Memo, ACofS G-4 GSUSA for ACofS G-3 GSUSA, 7 Peb 42, sub: Radio from Melbourne re Colored Labor Ba t ta l ions . In GSUSA G-4, Transportat ion Br f i l e , 000.900 Aust ra l ia , Vol I .
5 . On 31 Jan 42 "previous piecemeal requ i s i t ions or ig ina l ly submitted were consolidated and resubmitted to the War Department." These included
889954 0—50 34 O 1 '
the following QM units: 1 Bn, Truck; 4 Light Maintenance Companies; 1 Gasoline Supply Co.; 2 Depot Companies; 1 Heavy Maintenance Co.; 2 Hail-head Companies; 3 Port Headquarters; and 1 Port Bn. Barnes Rpt, p. 30.
6. (l) Memo, Chief, Supply Br, 0-4 GSUSA (Col H. B. Holmes, Jr), for ACofS Cx-4 GSUSA, 12 Feb 42, sub: Tables of Organization for X. In OCT HB file, SWPA - Organization. (2) Ltr, CofS USAFIA (Col S. J. Chamberlain) to ACofS G-4 GSUSA, 26 Feb 42. In OCT 563.5 Statistical Data. (3) Memo, CofTS USAFIA (Col Thomas B. Wilson) for ACofS G-4 USAFIA, 24 Apr 42. Ilef 11(a) to HTC Australia, Vol I.
7. (l) HTC Hq, supplement, 1942, p. 2. (2) Memo, Brig Gen Arthur R. Wilson, formerly ACofS G-4 USAFIA for CG SOS, 1 Jul 42, sub: Report on Aus tralia, pp. 4, 11, 12. In OCT HB file, POA - Inspection Trips. (3) Memo, Chief, Planning Br, Plans Div, SOS (Col L. D. Flory), for Chief, Plans 6 Jul 42, sub: Present and Projected Strengths of Central and Southwest Pacific Bases. In ASF Planning Div, 7a troop unit file, SWPA.
8. Memo, same for same, 24 Jul 42, sub: Service Units for Australia. Same file.
9. Col >?. A. Henning, Report on Supply Operations in Australia Based on Questions Submitted by Headquarters SOS to Col Stevens and Answers as Revised by the Headquarters USASOS SWPA on August 1, 1942. In ASP Planning Div file, la-1 Joint Supply Program (SWP&SPA)IV.
10. (l) Rad, CG SOS to CG USASOS, 7 Dec 42. In OCT KB file, SWPA Miscellaneous. (2) Rad, OG SWPA to WD, 20 Dec 42, Cm-In 8976 (21 Dec 42). In OCT 319.2 - 378.5 SWPA. (3) Memo, Chief, Training Div, OCT ASP, for ACofS, Operations, SOS, 15 Jan 43, sub: Monthly Report on Service Units. In OCT 319.1 transportation Corps. Comparable reports, which would serve as a basis for statistical treatment, are lacking from the file.
11. (1) HTC Hq, Jan-Jun 1943, p. 7. (2) USASOS GO 6, 24 Jan 43, sub: Activation of Units. Ref 8 to HTC Hq, Jan-Jun 1943. (3) Memo, Deputy Director of Operations, ASP (Brig Gen F. A. Heileman), for ACofS G-4 GSUSA, 1 Sep 43, sub: G-4 Periodic Report, USAFFE, for Quarter Ending 30 June 1943, SPOPP 319.1 (14 Aug 43). In ASF Planning Div, 13b day file - SWPA. (4) App 41, this volume.
12. (l) Rpt, Lewis Lapham, SFPE, addressee unnamed, 6 Mar 43, pp. 20, 29. Atchd to memo, Lt Col Raymond C. Stone for Chief, Control Div, ASF, 13 May 43. In CCT KB file, POA - Inspection Trips. (2) Rpt, Supt of ATS, SFPE (Col Jv H. Mellom), to ACofT for Operations, 26 May 43, sub: Report of Trip, and General Survey or Inspection, Made in South and Southwest Pacific Areas by Colonel J. H. Mellom, TC, from March 28 to May 21, 1943. In OCT HB file, POA - Inspection Trips. (3) Rpt, Lt Cols Alfred W. Parry and Rudolph G. Lehnau, Control Div, ASF, for Chief, Control Div, ASF, 12 May 43, sub: Report on Inspection Trip, Southwest Pacific Area and South Pacific Area, March 16 to May 4, 1943, pp. 2, 6. In OCT HB file, SWPA Miscellaneous.
- 518
Somervel;i13;L ^ - questionnaire, questions 73, 74, 196, 202. (2) * n o . CG ASF for CofS ASP, 3 Oct 43. In ASF Planning Div file, Report of General Somervell, SWPA.
14. Memo atchd to Somervell questionnaire, question 73. The document does not explicitly state that port battalions cannot shorten the war and are of no use except Mto make life a little more pleasant." No evidence is found that any previous request of SWPA for service troops had not been "stringently scrutinized."
15. (1) Memo, Deputy Director of Operations, ASP, for ACofS G-4 GSUSA, 1 Sep 43, cited in n. 11(3). (2) Ltr, TAG to CG USAFFE, 17 Sep 43, sub: G-4 Periodic Report, United States Army Forces in the Far East, for Quarter Ending 30 June 1943, AG 319.1 (8 Sep 43). In ASF Planning Div file, 12c G-4 Reports - SWPA. (3) Memo for File 8a, SWPA, sgd A. W. Yereance, Maj, 03, 23 Sep 43, sub: QM Boat Companies and TC Composite Companies (T/0 55-500) for SWPA. Same file. (4) Rpt, G-4 USASOS, addressee not named, undtd, sub: G-4 Periodic Report, United States Army Services of Supply, Quarter Ending 30 September 1943. Atchd to Ltr, AG USAFFE to ACofS G-4 GSUSA, 20 Oct 43, sub: G-4 Periodic Reports. Same file.
16. ETC Hq, Mar-Jun 1944, tab after p. 5.
17. Memo, ACofS G-4 GHQ, SV/PA (Brig Gen L. J. Unit lock) for CofS GEi SWPA, 28 Aug 44, sub: Logistic Estimate, MUSKETEER Operations. In ASF Planning Div file, Musketeer Operations. (2') Manual for Use in Computing Cargo Handling Requirements, compiled by Office of the CTO USASOS, 15 Dec 44, cited in n. 2.
18. HTC Hq, May 1945, pp. 1-2.
19. Ibid., Jul 1943 - Feb 1944, pp. 12-14; Jul 1945, pp. 6-8; Oct 1945, p. 4; Kov 1945, pp. 9, 22; Dec 1945, p. 8.
20. G-4 Periodic Report, quarter Ending December 31, 1942 (except Air Corps Technical Supply), unsgd, addressee not named, 13 Jan 43. In ASF Planning Div file, 12c G-4 Reports - SV/PA. It is not clear whether the report was submitted by G-4 USASOS or G-4 USAFFE.
21. (l) Lapham Rot, p. 28. (2) Information from Mariners, Rpt No. 119, prepared by Theater Grp, Collection Unit, Military Intelligence Service, 23 y.ov 43. In OCT H3 file, SV/PA - Ports & Facilities.
21a. Rpt, Intelligence Officer, SS William S. Ladd (2d Lt Burton A. rrarlinghouse), to Director, Intelligence and Public Relations Div, SEP.S, 25 Jan 44, sub: Report of Intelligence Officer on S3 William St Ladd. In OCT KB file, SWPA - Shipping.
Plb (1) Interview with Lt Col Carroll K. Moffatt, formerly Port Cominander/oro Bay, 23 May 49. (2) Ltr, CO, Base B, USASOS (Col M. C. Lat
- 519
timore), to officers and men of the 387th and 491st Port Bns, 18 Feb 44. Atchd to Historical Record, 387th Port Bn (TC), 25 Mar 42 - 31 Dec 43, in possession of Col Moffatt.
22. Crosby Rpt, Exhibit 2, par 8m, cited in n. 2a(l).
23. Positive Intelligence Bulletins Nos. 17 (l Mar 45) and 21 (18 May 45), issued by OCT. In OCT HB file, SWPA - Philippines - Pos. Intell. Ball.
24. Memo, Chief, Supply Br, G-4 GSUSA for ACofS G-4 GSUSA, 12 Feb 42, cited in n. 6(l).
25. (1) Somervell questionnaire, question 74. (2) HTC Australia, I, 80. (3) Memo, CofTS USAFIA (Col Thomas B. Wilson) for ACofS G-4 USAFIA, 24 Apr 42. Ref ll(a) to HTC Australia, Vol I. (4) "U. S.t Australian Soldiers Take Stevedore Duties during Strike." Clipping from Wire Service Bulletin, 8 Apr 43. In OCT HB file, SWPA - Clippings & Releases. This strike was not authorized by the union. (5) Lapham Rpt.
26. (1) Lapham Rpt. (2) Mellom Hpt, cited in n. 12(2). According to the Somervell questionnaire, question 196, stevedoring efficiency at Brisbane was close to that of ports in the United States, but this assertion is contradicted by all other references to stevedoring at Brisbane. (3) Notes of interview with Col Thomas G. Plant, formerly CTO USASOS, 16 Jun 44. In OCT HB file, SWPA - Miscellaneous. (4) Parry and Lehnau Bpt, p. 6, cited in n. 12(3).
27. (l) Garlinghouse Rpt, cited in n. 21(3). (2) lapham Rpt. (3) Rpt, Asst Intelligence Officer, Intelligence and Public Relations Div, SFPE (1st Lt Thomas William Sullivan, Jr), addressee unnamed, 9 Dec 43, sub: Observations of an Informant Stationed aboard the USAT Fred C. Ainsworth on Recent Trip to Australia from San Francisco, Beginning 15 October 1943 and Ending 27 November 1943. In OCT 319.1 SWPA. (4) Rpt, Boarding Officer, District Intelligence Office, 12th Naval Dist (Lt (jg) V. J. King), addressee unnamed, 2 Jul 43, sub: Boarding Report of the MS Cape Flattery. 0, A. Ford, Master, A14-1/QS-16/B-5, #1-422. In OCT HB file, SWPA - Ports & facilities.
30. (l) Lapham Rpt. (2) Plant interview, cited in n. 26(3). (3) Sullivan Rpt, cited in n. 27(3).
31. (1) Sullivan Rpt, cited in n. 27(3). (2) King Rpt, cited in n. 27(4). (3) Garlinghouse Rpt, cited in n. 21(3).
32. Ltr, CG SFPE to CofTS SOS, 18 Jul 42, sub: 385th Quart;ermaster Battalion (Port). In OCT 000-300 SWPA.
- 520
y *"* ehnau cited in nI P - 1 2 ^ ) - (2) Laptiam Rpt, ham of interview with Lt Col Rudolph G. Lehnau, 22 May 43, sub:
southwest Pacific Command. In OCT HB file, SWPA - Miscellaneous.
33a. Memo, Chief, Supply Br, G«-4 GSUSA, for ACofS G-4 GSUSA, 12 Feb 42, cited in n. 6(l).
34. (l) Somervell questionnaire, questions 74, 196. (2) HTC New Guinea, 1942-44, p. 26.
35. HTC Philippine Islands, Oct 1944 - Jan 1945, p. 3.
36. Ibid., Oct 1944 - Jan 1945, p. 3; Mar 1945, pp. 18-19; May 1945, P. 10.
37. Ibic., Feb 1946, pp, 28-30.
38. (1) HTC Australia, I, 80-81. (2) Memo, CO, 704th Ordnance Co, APO 924 (1st Lt Allen F. Jones), to Capt Johnson, Air Force Supply, 18 Jul 42. In OCT 401-451 SWPA. (3) Memo, Chief, Overseas Supply Div, SFPil (Col Abbott Boone), for CG SFPE, 11 3Peb 43, sub: Keport of Visit to Pacific Bases. In OCT KB file, POA. (4) Lapham Rpt.
39. Ltr, CG USASOS to CGs, US Advanced Base and Base Sees 3 and 7, and COs, Base Sees 1, 2, and 4, 14 Mar 43, sub: Pilfering of U. S. Army Supplies. Ref 4 to HTC Hq, Jul 1944.
40. (l) HTC Australia, II, 133. (2) Somervell questionnaire, question 14. (3) 1st Ind, Chief, Control Div, OCT ASF (Lt Col Luketf. Finlay), to CG ASP, 9 ITov 43. In OCT 400-400.312 SWPA.
41. (l) Information from Mariners, No. 132, prepared by Theater Grp, Collection Unit, Military Intelligence Div, 2- Dec 43. In OCT HB file, SWPA - Ports and Facilities. (2) Sullivan Hpt, cited in n. 27(3).
42. (1) Garlinghouse Rpt, cited inn. 21(3). (2) Interview with Lt Col Cecil H. Davidson, formerly Supt of ATS, Brisbane, 15 Jun 49.
43. Ept, Interviewing Officer, Intelligence and Public Relations Div, SFPE (1st Lt J. V. Hamilton), addressee not nsjned, 7 Jan 44, sub: Report of Cargo Security Officer. In OCT 419.1 SWPA.
44. Sxcerpt from 3risbane Sunday Mail, 4 Jun 44. Ref 12-b to HTC
Australia, Vol III.
45 (1) Memo, CTO USASOS to G-4 USASOS, 30 Jul 44, sub: Pilfering of U. S. Army Supplies. In HTC Hq, Jul 1944. (2) HTC Hq, Aug 1944-, p. 6.
46. Garlinghouse Ept, cited in n. 21(3).
- 521
47. (l) Technical Intelligence Kpt No. 236, prepared by Intelligence Br, Intelligence and Security Div, NOPE, 21 Apr 45, sub: Anti-Filferage Recommendations for Cargo Security Officers, (2) Same office, Technical Intelligence fipt Ho. 396, 8 May 45, sub: Pilferage at Manila. Both in OCT 000.3 SWPA.
48. HTC Hq, Oct 1945, p. 16; Dec 1945, p. 5; Oct 1946, p. 40.