Was the tugboat ever part of a WWII battle group?












3















It would seem a pretty logical addition to a WWII battle group to have one of more tugs for the capital ships (heck, any ship), yet I don't see much evidence of that. Let me elaborate.



I was an Army officer for support company. If I recall correctly (it was a LONG time ago), we had several wreckers whose jobs was to retrieve tanks or other vehicles that had been disabled. A couple were fully armored and capable of towing the heavy tanks of the day (M60A3 and M1, just introduced) under fire if necessary.



I have been reading about several incidents in WWII involving US capital ships: Yorktown, Hornet, and Chicago. They were crippled and trying to make it to safer waters. Of the ships, only the Chicago was ever towed by a tugboat (the equivalent of my wrecker) and not at first. Without a tugboat, ships like the Yorktown could only be towed at 3-5 knots, but I hear of Navajo class tugs with speeds better than 15 knots. Under load I haven't been able to find a source but I would think it much better than 3-5 knots.



Considering how important capital ships were, especially carriers like Hornet and Yorktown, why wasn't there a tug or two handy in the event they became disabled? Seems like in the case of Yorktown especially, speedy evacuation could have saved her. In addition, using a tug would mean freeing another ship to continue the fight. Why weren't there tugs available at Midway, Santa Cruz or other confrontations where they might have been able to quickly take other ships to safer waters? TIA










share|improve this question



























    3















    It would seem a pretty logical addition to a WWII battle group to have one of more tugs for the capital ships (heck, any ship), yet I don't see much evidence of that. Let me elaborate.



    I was an Army officer for support company. If I recall correctly (it was a LONG time ago), we had several wreckers whose jobs was to retrieve tanks or other vehicles that had been disabled. A couple were fully armored and capable of towing the heavy tanks of the day (M60A3 and M1, just introduced) under fire if necessary.



    I have been reading about several incidents in WWII involving US capital ships: Yorktown, Hornet, and Chicago. They were crippled and trying to make it to safer waters. Of the ships, only the Chicago was ever towed by a tugboat (the equivalent of my wrecker) and not at first. Without a tugboat, ships like the Yorktown could only be towed at 3-5 knots, but I hear of Navajo class tugs with speeds better than 15 knots. Under load I haven't been able to find a source but I would think it much better than 3-5 knots.



    Considering how important capital ships were, especially carriers like Hornet and Yorktown, why wasn't there a tug or two handy in the event they became disabled? Seems like in the case of Yorktown especially, speedy evacuation could have saved her. In addition, using a tug would mean freeing another ship to continue the fight. Why weren't there tugs available at Midway, Santa Cruz or other confrontations where they might have been able to quickly take other ships to safer waters? TIA










    share|improve this question

























      3












      3








      3








      It would seem a pretty logical addition to a WWII battle group to have one of more tugs for the capital ships (heck, any ship), yet I don't see much evidence of that. Let me elaborate.



      I was an Army officer for support company. If I recall correctly (it was a LONG time ago), we had several wreckers whose jobs was to retrieve tanks or other vehicles that had been disabled. A couple were fully armored and capable of towing the heavy tanks of the day (M60A3 and M1, just introduced) under fire if necessary.



      I have been reading about several incidents in WWII involving US capital ships: Yorktown, Hornet, and Chicago. They were crippled and trying to make it to safer waters. Of the ships, only the Chicago was ever towed by a tugboat (the equivalent of my wrecker) and not at first. Without a tugboat, ships like the Yorktown could only be towed at 3-5 knots, but I hear of Navajo class tugs with speeds better than 15 knots. Under load I haven't been able to find a source but I would think it much better than 3-5 knots.



      Considering how important capital ships were, especially carriers like Hornet and Yorktown, why wasn't there a tug or two handy in the event they became disabled? Seems like in the case of Yorktown especially, speedy evacuation could have saved her. In addition, using a tug would mean freeing another ship to continue the fight. Why weren't there tugs available at Midway, Santa Cruz or other confrontations where they might have been able to quickly take other ships to safer waters? TIA










      share|improve this question














      It would seem a pretty logical addition to a WWII battle group to have one of more tugs for the capital ships (heck, any ship), yet I don't see much evidence of that. Let me elaborate.



      I was an Army officer for support company. If I recall correctly (it was a LONG time ago), we had several wreckers whose jobs was to retrieve tanks or other vehicles that had been disabled. A couple were fully armored and capable of towing the heavy tanks of the day (M60A3 and M1, just introduced) under fire if necessary.



      I have been reading about several incidents in WWII involving US capital ships: Yorktown, Hornet, and Chicago. They were crippled and trying to make it to safer waters. Of the ships, only the Chicago was ever towed by a tugboat (the equivalent of my wrecker) and not at first. Without a tugboat, ships like the Yorktown could only be towed at 3-5 knots, but I hear of Navajo class tugs with speeds better than 15 knots. Under load I haven't been able to find a source but I would think it much better than 3-5 knots.



      Considering how important capital ships were, especially carriers like Hornet and Yorktown, why wasn't there a tug or two handy in the event they became disabled? Seems like in the case of Yorktown especially, speedy evacuation could have saved her. In addition, using a tug would mean freeing another ship to continue the fight. Why weren't there tugs available at Midway, Santa Cruz or other confrontations where they might have been able to quickly take other ships to safer waters? TIA







      world-war-two navy






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 4 hours ago









      kmccartykmccarty

      1855




      1855






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          The US Navy certainly had ocean-going tugs during the Second World War. One example you mentioned was the Navajo-class, or Cherokee-class ocean-going fleet tugs (ATF), another were the Abnaki-class fleet tugs.



          These vessels should not be confused with harbour tugs which perform a completely different function.



          There are a number of sites that list US Navy ocean-going tugs, one example being this one that lists US Navy Ocean Tugs (AT, ATO, ATF, ATA, ATR)





          Even given a top speed close to 15 knots, and a range of up to 6000 miles, these vessels couldn't come close to matching the speed of large naval vessels which could make over 30 knots. In addition, most of these vessels weren't completely unarmed, they were certainly only lightly armed compared to most combat ships.



          For operations where speed was essential (the Battle of Midway being a great example), there was no way that one of these vessels could accompany a battle group, no matter how useful they might have been once combat operations began, and in their immediate aftermath.





          However, some of these vessels certainly did accompany task forces in the Pacific theatre. For example, the USS Apache (ATF-67)



          USS Apache




          • image source Wikimedia


          served as part of Task Force 31 for the invasion of Bougainville in 1943, as part of Task Group 31.2 for an assault on Emirau Island in the Bismarck Archipelago in March 1944, and at Guadalcanal the following month. She then joined Task Group 53.1 in June 1944 to assist in the invasion of Saipan.



          In these cases, the relatively slow speed and light armament of the ATF were not a significant disadvantage.





          If you're interested in the operation of fleet tugs during the Second World War, the paper Fleet Tugs in World War II by Cmdr. Edward H. Lundquist may also be of interest.






          share|improve this answer































            1














            No!



            A tugboat doesn't pull, or tug, it's load; rather it pushes it with that padded front end.



            enter image description here



            Their purpose is to nudge large ships around cramped harbours due to those ships having no steerageway at such low speeds. Their very low freeboard (height of gunnels above the water) makes them completely unsuitable for open water use, even though mush of the interior is compartmentalised. As they work entirely within the confines of small harbours they have no use for large fuel tanks, and consequently an operational range measured in hours rather than days and weeks.



            Further, they would be a severe liability in a naval battle due to their complete lack of armament or self defence.



            Also, paradoxically, large ships are capable of much faster speeds than smaller ones, due to the cube-square law (until strength of materials fails, of course). Top speed for a tugboat is typically about 14 knots, while top speed for open water vessels is above 30 knots; more than twice as great. Top speed for a tug under load. pushing a vessel orders of magnitude heavier, will be a tiny fraction of top speed, if only because the load vessel is no longer aerodynamic when being pushed sideways.



            To consider one of your examples, Midway, the as the crow flies distance to Pearl Harbor is about 850 NM; at least 84 hours travel time out for a tug at top speed, plus however long for one or more refuelings. Then several times that, at least, coming back with load. No port can be without its tugs for so long when other large vessels are constantly coming and going.






            share|improve this answer

































              0














              You need to take into account the effect of slow tugs on battle groups. If they remain together the max speed of the group is that of its slowest boat. 15 knots is darn slow by WW2, or even WW1, warship standards and would severely limit long distance deployments like in the Pacific.



              Tanks on the other hand are often, at least in the initial assault phases, before deep penetration exploitation, less likely to outrun their support vehicles.



              A "friendlier" environment to your concept, and more akin to your example of tank retrieval, would be near coastal operations, like in the North Sea during WW2.






              share|improve this answer























                Your Answer








                StackExchange.ready(function() {
                var channelOptions = {
                tags: "".split(" "),
                id: "324"
                };
                initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

                StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
                // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
                if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
                StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
                createEditor();
                });
                }
                else {
                createEditor();
                }
                });

                function createEditor() {
                StackExchange.prepareEditor({
                heartbeatType: 'answer',
                autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
                convertImagesToLinks: false,
                noModals: true,
                showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
                reputationToPostImages: null,
                bindNavPrevention: true,
                postfix: "",
                imageUploader: {
                brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
                contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
                allowUrls: true
                },
                noCode: true, onDemand: true,
                discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
                ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
                });


                }
                });














                draft saved

                draft discarded


















                StackExchange.ready(
                function () {
                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f50955%2fwas-the-tugboat-ever-part-of-a-wwii-battle-group%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                }
                );

                Post as a guest















                Required, but never shown

























                3 Answers
                3






                active

                oldest

                votes








                3 Answers
                3






                active

                oldest

                votes









                active

                oldest

                votes






                active

                oldest

                votes









                1














                The US Navy certainly had ocean-going tugs during the Second World War. One example you mentioned was the Navajo-class, or Cherokee-class ocean-going fleet tugs (ATF), another were the Abnaki-class fleet tugs.



                These vessels should not be confused with harbour tugs which perform a completely different function.



                There are a number of sites that list US Navy ocean-going tugs, one example being this one that lists US Navy Ocean Tugs (AT, ATO, ATF, ATA, ATR)





                Even given a top speed close to 15 knots, and a range of up to 6000 miles, these vessels couldn't come close to matching the speed of large naval vessels which could make over 30 knots. In addition, most of these vessels weren't completely unarmed, they were certainly only lightly armed compared to most combat ships.



                For operations where speed was essential (the Battle of Midway being a great example), there was no way that one of these vessels could accompany a battle group, no matter how useful they might have been once combat operations began, and in their immediate aftermath.





                However, some of these vessels certainly did accompany task forces in the Pacific theatre. For example, the USS Apache (ATF-67)



                USS Apache




                • image source Wikimedia


                served as part of Task Force 31 for the invasion of Bougainville in 1943, as part of Task Group 31.2 for an assault on Emirau Island in the Bismarck Archipelago in March 1944, and at Guadalcanal the following month. She then joined Task Group 53.1 in June 1944 to assist in the invasion of Saipan.



                In these cases, the relatively slow speed and light armament of the ATF were not a significant disadvantage.





                If you're interested in the operation of fleet tugs during the Second World War, the paper Fleet Tugs in World War II by Cmdr. Edward H. Lundquist may also be of interest.






                share|improve this answer




























                  1














                  The US Navy certainly had ocean-going tugs during the Second World War. One example you mentioned was the Navajo-class, or Cherokee-class ocean-going fleet tugs (ATF), another were the Abnaki-class fleet tugs.



                  These vessels should not be confused with harbour tugs which perform a completely different function.



                  There are a number of sites that list US Navy ocean-going tugs, one example being this one that lists US Navy Ocean Tugs (AT, ATO, ATF, ATA, ATR)





                  Even given a top speed close to 15 knots, and a range of up to 6000 miles, these vessels couldn't come close to matching the speed of large naval vessels which could make over 30 knots. In addition, most of these vessels weren't completely unarmed, they were certainly only lightly armed compared to most combat ships.



                  For operations where speed was essential (the Battle of Midway being a great example), there was no way that one of these vessels could accompany a battle group, no matter how useful they might have been once combat operations began, and in their immediate aftermath.





                  However, some of these vessels certainly did accompany task forces in the Pacific theatre. For example, the USS Apache (ATF-67)



                  USS Apache




                  • image source Wikimedia


                  served as part of Task Force 31 for the invasion of Bougainville in 1943, as part of Task Group 31.2 for an assault on Emirau Island in the Bismarck Archipelago in March 1944, and at Guadalcanal the following month. She then joined Task Group 53.1 in June 1944 to assist in the invasion of Saipan.



                  In these cases, the relatively slow speed and light armament of the ATF were not a significant disadvantage.





                  If you're interested in the operation of fleet tugs during the Second World War, the paper Fleet Tugs in World War II by Cmdr. Edward H. Lundquist may also be of interest.






                  share|improve this answer


























                    1












                    1








                    1







                    The US Navy certainly had ocean-going tugs during the Second World War. One example you mentioned was the Navajo-class, or Cherokee-class ocean-going fleet tugs (ATF), another were the Abnaki-class fleet tugs.



                    These vessels should not be confused with harbour tugs which perform a completely different function.



                    There are a number of sites that list US Navy ocean-going tugs, one example being this one that lists US Navy Ocean Tugs (AT, ATO, ATF, ATA, ATR)





                    Even given a top speed close to 15 knots, and a range of up to 6000 miles, these vessels couldn't come close to matching the speed of large naval vessels which could make over 30 knots. In addition, most of these vessels weren't completely unarmed, they were certainly only lightly armed compared to most combat ships.



                    For operations where speed was essential (the Battle of Midway being a great example), there was no way that one of these vessels could accompany a battle group, no matter how useful they might have been once combat operations began, and in their immediate aftermath.





                    However, some of these vessels certainly did accompany task forces in the Pacific theatre. For example, the USS Apache (ATF-67)



                    USS Apache




                    • image source Wikimedia


                    served as part of Task Force 31 for the invasion of Bougainville in 1943, as part of Task Group 31.2 for an assault on Emirau Island in the Bismarck Archipelago in March 1944, and at Guadalcanal the following month. She then joined Task Group 53.1 in June 1944 to assist in the invasion of Saipan.



                    In these cases, the relatively slow speed and light armament of the ATF were not a significant disadvantage.





                    If you're interested in the operation of fleet tugs during the Second World War, the paper Fleet Tugs in World War II by Cmdr. Edward H. Lundquist may also be of interest.






                    share|improve this answer













                    The US Navy certainly had ocean-going tugs during the Second World War. One example you mentioned was the Navajo-class, or Cherokee-class ocean-going fleet tugs (ATF), another were the Abnaki-class fleet tugs.



                    These vessels should not be confused with harbour tugs which perform a completely different function.



                    There are a number of sites that list US Navy ocean-going tugs, one example being this one that lists US Navy Ocean Tugs (AT, ATO, ATF, ATA, ATR)





                    Even given a top speed close to 15 knots, and a range of up to 6000 miles, these vessels couldn't come close to matching the speed of large naval vessels which could make over 30 knots. In addition, most of these vessels weren't completely unarmed, they were certainly only lightly armed compared to most combat ships.



                    For operations where speed was essential (the Battle of Midway being a great example), there was no way that one of these vessels could accompany a battle group, no matter how useful they might have been once combat operations began, and in their immediate aftermath.





                    However, some of these vessels certainly did accompany task forces in the Pacific theatre. For example, the USS Apache (ATF-67)



                    USS Apache




                    • image source Wikimedia


                    served as part of Task Force 31 for the invasion of Bougainville in 1943, as part of Task Group 31.2 for an assault on Emirau Island in the Bismarck Archipelago in March 1944, and at Guadalcanal the following month. She then joined Task Group 53.1 in June 1944 to assist in the invasion of Saipan.



                    In these cases, the relatively slow speed and light armament of the ATF were not a significant disadvantage.





                    If you're interested in the operation of fleet tugs during the Second World War, the paper Fleet Tugs in World War II by Cmdr. Edward H. Lundquist may also be of interest.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 33 mins ago









                    sempaiscubasempaiscuba

                    49k6167216




                    49k6167216























                        1














                        No!



                        A tugboat doesn't pull, or tug, it's load; rather it pushes it with that padded front end.



                        enter image description here



                        Their purpose is to nudge large ships around cramped harbours due to those ships having no steerageway at such low speeds. Their very low freeboard (height of gunnels above the water) makes them completely unsuitable for open water use, even though mush of the interior is compartmentalised. As they work entirely within the confines of small harbours they have no use for large fuel tanks, and consequently an operational range measured in hours rather than days and weeks.



                        Further, they would be a severe liability in a naval battle due to their complete lack of armament or self defence.



                        Also, paradoxically, large ships are capable of much faster speeds than smaller ones, due to the cube-square law (until strength of materials fails, of course). Top speed for a tugboat is typically about 14 knots, while top speed for open water vessels is above 30 knots; more than twice as great. Top speed for a tug under load. pushing a vessel orders of magnitude heavier, will be a tiny fraction of top speed, if only because the load vessel is no longer aerodynamic when being pushed sideways.



                        To consider one of your examples, Midway, the as the crow flies distance to Pearl Harbor is about 850 NM; at least 84 hours travel time out for a tug at top speed, plus however long for one or more refuelings. Then several times that, at least, coming back with load. No port can be without its tugs for so long when other large vessels are constantly coming and going.






                        share|improve this answer






























                          1














                          No!



                          A tugboat doesn't pull, or tug, it's load; rather it pushes it with that padded front end.



                          enter image description here



                          Their purpose is to nudge large ships around cramped harbours due to those ships having no steerageway at such low speeds. Their very low freeboard (height of gunnels above the water) makes them completely unsuitable for open water use, even though mush of the interior is compartmentalised. As they work entirely within the confines of small harbours they have no use for large fuel tanks, and consequently an operational range measured in hours rather than days and weeks.



                          Further, they would be a severe liability in a naval battle due to their complete lack of armament or self defence.



                          Also, paradoxically, large ships are capable of much faster speeds than smaller ones, due to the cube-square law (until strength of materials fails, of course). Top speed for a tugboat is typically about 14 knots, while top speed for open water vessels is above 30 knots; more than twice as great. Top speed for a tug under load. pushing a vessel orders of magnitude heavier, will be a tiny fraction of top speed, if only because the load vessel is no longer aerodynamic when being pushed sideways.



                          To consider one of your examples, Midway, the as the crow flies distance to Pearl Harbor is about 850 NM; at least 84 hours travel time out for a tug at top speed, plus however long for one or more refuelings. Then several times that, at least, coming back with load. No port can be without its tugs for so long when other large vessels are constantly coming and going.






                          share|improve this answer




























                            1












                            1








                            1







                            No!



                            A tugboat doesn't pull, or tug, it's load; rather it pushes it with that padded front end.



                            enter image description here



                            Their purpose is to nudge large ships around cramped harbours due to those ships having no steerageway at such low speeds. Their very low freeboard (height of gunnels above the water) makes them completely unsuitable for open water use, even though mush of the interior is compartmentalised. As they work entirely within the confines of small harbours they have no use for large fuel tanks, and consequently an operational range measured in hours rather than days and weeks.



                            Further, they would be a severe liability in a naval battle due to their complete lack of armament or self defence.



                            Also, paradoxically, large ships are capable of much faster speeds than smaller ones, due to the cube-square law (until strength of materials fails, of course). Top speed for a tugboat is typically about 14 knots, while top speed for open water vessels is above 30 knots; more than twice as great. Top speed for a tug under load. pushing a vessel orders of magnitude heavier, will be a tiny fraction of top speed, if only because the load vessel is no longer aerodynamic when being pushed sideways.



                            To consider one of your examples, Midway, the as the crow flies distance to Pearl Harbor is about 850 NM; at least 84 hours travel time out for a tug at top speed, plus however long for one or more refuelings. Then several times that, at least, coming back with load. No port can be without its tugs for so long when other large vessels are constantly coming and going.






                            share|improve this answer















                            No!



                            A tugboat doesn't pull, or tug, it's load; rather it pushes it with that padded front end.



                            enter image description here



                            Their purpose is to nudge large ships around cramped harbours due to those ships having no steerageway at such low speeds. Their very low freeboard (height of gunnels above the water) makes them completely unsuitable for open water use, even though mush of the interior is compartmentalised. As they work entirely within the confines of small harbours they have no use for large fuel tanks, and consequently an operational range measured in hours rather than days and weeks.



                            Further, they would be a severe liability in a naval battle due to their complete lack of armament or self defence.



                            Also, paradoxically, large ships are capable of much faster speeds than smaller ones, due to the cube-square law (until strength of materials fails, of course). Top speed for a tugboat is typically about 14 knots, while top speed for open water vessels is above 30 knots; more than twice as great. Top speed for a tug under load. pushing a vessel orders of magnitude heavier, will be a tiny fraction of top speed, if only because the load vessel is no longer aerodynamic when being pushed sideways.



                            To consider one of your examples, Midway, the as the crow flies distance to Pearl Harbor is about 850 NM; at least 84 hours travel time out for a tug at top speed, plus however long for one or more refuelings. Then several times that, at least, coming back with load. No port can be without its tugs for so long when other large vessels are constantly coming and going.







                            share|improve this answer














                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer








                            edited 4 hours ago

























                            answered 4 hours ago









                            Pieter GeerkensPieter Geerkens

                            39.8k6116190




                            39.8k6116190























                                0














                                You need to take into account the effect of slow tugs on battle groups. If they remain together the max speed of the group is that of its slowest boat. 15 knots is darn slow by WW2, or even WW1, warship standards and would severely limit long distance deployments like in the Pacific.



                                Tanks on the other hand are often, at least in the initial assault phases, before deep penetration exploitation, less likely to outrun their support vehicles.



                                A "friendlier" environment to your concept, and more akin to your example of tank retrieval, would be near coastal operations, like in the North Sea during WW2.






                                share|improve this answer




























                                  0














                                  You need to take into account the effect of slow tugs on battle groups. If they remain together the max speed of the group is that of its slowest boat. 15 knots is darn slow by WW2, or even WW1, warship standards and would severely limit long distance deployments like in the Pacific.



                                  Tanks on the other hand are often, at least in the initial assault phases, before deep penetration exploitation, less likely to outrun their support vehicles.



                                  A "friendlier" environment to your concept, and more akin to your example of tank retrieval, would be near coastal operations, like in the North Sea during WW2.






                                  share|improve this answer


























                                    0












                                    0








                                    0







                                    You need to take into account the effect of slow tugs on battle groups. If they remain together the max speed of the group is that of its slowest boat. 15 knots is darn slow by WW2, or even WW1, warship standards and would severely limit long distance deployments like in the Pacific.



                                    Tanks on the other hand are often, at least in the initial assault phases, before deep penetration exploitation, less likely to outrun their support vehicles.



                                    A "friendlier" environment to your concept, and more akin to your example of tank retrieval, would be near coastal operations, like in the North Sea during WW2.






                                    share|improve this answer













                                    You need to take into account the effect of slow tugs on battle groups. If they remain together the max speed of the group is that of its slowest boat. 15 knots is darn slow by WW2, or even WW1, warship standards and would severely limit long distance deployments like in the Pacific.



                                    Tanks on the other hand are often, at least in the initial assault phases, before deep penetration exploitation, less likely to outrun their support vehicles.



                                    A "friendlier" environment to your concept, and more akin to your example of tank retrieval, would be near coastal operations, like in the North Sea during WW2.







                                    share|improve this answer












                                    share|improve this answer



                                    share|improve this answer










                                    answered 4 hours ago









                                    Italian PhilosopherItalian Philosopher

                                    844513




                                    844513






























                                        draft saved

                                        draft discarded




















































                                        Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!


                                        • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                        But avoid



                                        • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                        • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                        To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                        draft saved


                                        draft discarded














                                        StackExchange.ready(
                                        function () {
                                        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f50955%2fwas-the-tugboat-ever-part-of-a-wwii-battle-group%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                        }
                                        );

                                        Post as a guest















                                        Required, but never shown





















































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown

































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Popular posts from this blog

                                        Costa Masnaga

                                        Fotorealismo

                                        Sidney Franklin