Talk:SS Empire Bittern

Untitled

Why did she fall out of the convoy?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That info isn't available online. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, Mjroots: Perhaps the answer is in the 1933 U.S. register. "Abandoned" due to age and deterioration almost a decade before transfer to MoWT. Most likely there was a breakdown — fortunately not in mid-Atlantic. That likely answer also shows what we who are familiar with the time know. In 1940-41 the desperation in the U.k. for any hull that could float, no matter how perilously, or more or less move brought hulks to "life" when they should be scrap. That state remained for much of the war with very old U.S. coastal "liners" being towed across after having plates welded to add freeboard. In trying to fill out the history of this ship the notable thing has been its obscurity. It barely appears as Iowa (largely animal transport?) and references, thin but there, for the earlier Bohemia but almost non-existing for this second Bohemia though there are a couple of hints of it being an immigrant ship (another form of "cattle" transport considering conditions of so many?) from Germany to the U.S. After WW I it has a few brief mentions then spends a decade laid up and then abandoned. Then it is brought back to brave North Atlantic convoys (Having spent no little time in that part of the ocean I view that on such a ship with some horror even without subs!) One can almost see the relief in "expending" this poor old hull to protect Mulberry 3 in one last service. Palmeira (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Palmeira: it might be worth a trawl through the Pacific Marine Review (see WP:SHIPS/R#Country specific sources) and see what turns up. Mjroots (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Been there. In the earliest editions PMR was very Pacific coast focused. Only later, after WW I, did it begin some coverage of foreign events and even much coverage of Atlantic coast events. The one place there I've not crawled is in the 1940-41 yard activity. Sometimes repair contracts are mentioned. One much hopes that ship got some repairs after being "abandoned" so long. The first crawling was in those turn of the 20th century marine engineering journals that are often so useful and have extensive mention of ship launches and trials. Nothing, Internal searches of applicable years and not one mention of Iowa or Bohemia even though other Harland & Wolfe construction and launches, even for small vessels, are covered. I find it exceptional that this ship was not mentioned, though there seems a six month gap in some of the 1902-03 issues on line.

To some extent this is somewhat a ghost ship that popped up in two wars with a zombie like existence much of the time between wars. A few of the ship's officers and others during my seagoing days related going aboard ships long in those reserve fleets to inspect them for possible activation. More than one spoke of "hair raising" and awakening nights after with "spooky nightmares" so the thought of activating Artemis after nearly a decade "abandoned" . . . and coming aboard Empire Bittern to face the North Atlantic and subs when that hulk was about forty years old may wake me some night soon. Well, fortunately, one could at least likely obtain a stiff drink now and then on a British ship! Palmeira (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Recommend rename

The ship was U.S.N. only April to October 1919. Longer military service allocated by the USSB was as an Army transport. That would be the better U.S. "war" name. Personally I think that is superseded in priority by last name, service and end as a blockship at the Normandy beaches. Empire Bittern thus is my first choice. Only second would be USAT Artemis (though U.S.A.T. may be inaccurate technically as U.S.A.C.T. (United States Army Chartered Transport) was in use at the time. In fact, a reference to the ship firing on a submarine is specific with U.S.A.C.T. Artemis. As a note, later U.S.A.T. was "officially" reserved for ships owned or bareboat chartered by the Army. It appears in WW I the difference in those two categories was made clear as the Army Transport Service operated owned ships.

On a rename, USS Artemis is pretty insignificant other than DANFS verbiage availability. Empire Bittern had at least the same convoy service in WW II and an end creating the horrible surprise for Germany of a "port" within hours of a beachhead on their Atlantic Wall fortress. Palmeira (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: Recent revision and Army JAG cite show the USAT status not applicable. In WW II terms the ship was simply allocated with full control, crew and operation by USSB. Rename to USAT is thus out. It would be a blunder. Palmeira (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Support name change for reasons stated Llammakey (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Support - although she spent most of her life as Artemis, she was expended as Empire Bittern, so SS Empire Bittern is a good title. Mjroots (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I will try to add a bit to the Empire Bittern text. Perhaps you can do the move, as in the past, when appropriate since the existing redirect page will block a straight move preserving history and I do not have authority to delete pages (or do not know the process). Palmeira (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Palmeira: sure, just ping me once sufficient consensus has been established. Mjroots (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I am agnostic on which part of her history gets the article title, and certainly no objection to Empire Bittern if you prefer. Davidships (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Your recent additions certainly helped flesh out the pre 1917 history. Thanks! While there is now more on the first name so that "first name" might compete with "last name" as options one thing is certain. The April-October 1919 Navy name is the least significant of all and United States Army Transport (USAT) was invalid. You've shown Bohemia was probably insignificant as well with the conversion not taking place. In my view that leaves SS Iowa (1902), SS Artemis (1902) or SS Empire Bittern. The 1902 is necessary in the first two as both names are not unique. I am, though a bit more neutral, still suggesting Empire Bittern as the last, the unique and, considering its role at Mulberry 3 during the invasion, the most "notable" option. It appears parts of the hull may remain off the beaches as one of the breakwater ships that was "cut down" to the bottom but not completely removed. I've not found a reliable source on that. Palmeira (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: There have been no objections, though I'm not sure three (including myself) "Support" and one agnostic constitute consensus. I do think, for reasons stated immediately above, getting away from the Navy specific title is necessary. Perhaps you could review and make the rename decision and then make the move. Palmeira (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, that was a little more complicated than I thought it would be. Article and talk page moved. I've altered the Wikilinks in the templates at the bottom of the article, and reworded the lede. The latter could probably be improved on, as ledes are not my strong point. Mjroots (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Thank you. I will check the lede and double check incoming links. Palmeira (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I took care of the redirects. Mjroots (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)