Submarine Cargo Ships and Tankers 375 
these submarine tankers because at the moment at Clydebank we have been building such a 
number of present day modern large tankers. Now, as you are all aware, in these present- 
day tankers a great deal of attention is being paid to the amenities for the crew. The very 
rapid turn round of these tankers, both at their loading port and at their delivery port means 
that the crew generally get very few advantages of leave or of getting home and the condi- 
tions on board the tankers are made all the more pleasant and congenial for these men. 
When you come to the submarine tanker, I would like you to think of the psychological 
aspect of the environmental conditions. These people are to be living in artificial condi- 
tions, with no daylight for days and weeks at a time, and the financial cost of making these 
conditions congenial and tolerable would add very considerably to the economic aspect of 
running these ships. In the case of the American submarine NAUTILUS, which did that 
epoch-making trip under the ice in the Polar regions, the crew, when you read the descrip- 
tion of the voyage, had quite extensive arrangements made for their entertainment and to 
keep them happy; but they were doing a special job, they were being filled with a feeling of 
prestige attached to the job. To maintain, as would you call it, an equally high standard of 
“esprit de crew,” then, quite a lot of money is involved. I would like that thought to be 
kept in mind because I do feel that when such craft do come along that aspect of it which 
apparently has not been considered so far will require quite an amount of attention. 
F. H. Todd 
Mr. Ferguson has called attention to a very important point in the operating of sub- 
marine cargo ships and tankers —the maintenance of the health and happiness of the crews. 
This would without question involve owners in a considerable increase in running costs. 
As mentioned in the paper, the operation of such craft will call for very highly skilled per- 
sonnel, both for navigational and engineering purposes, and this also will add still further 
to the costs, and these two factors together may be of importance in the overall economic 
comparison. 
M. F. Gunning (Netherlands United Shipbuilding Bureau) 
We have made some fairly detailed investigations inte a 20,000-ton tanker with a 
moderate eccentricity of the ellipse of the midship section with proper diving depth, reason- 
able strength of outer hull, etc., and we find that we come well above 0.6, closer to 0.65, 
deadweight ratio. Here, I am sorry, I am very much at loggerheads with my very good friend 
Mr. Newton. 
F.H. Todd 
The question of deadweight/displacement ratio has been discussed at length, and Mr. 
Gunning’s figure of 0.65 seems to be very much higher than those quoted by people with 
experience in the design of naval submarines and those given as the result of a very 
thorough study of commercial submarines by the Maritime Administration in the U.S., which 
I have referred to. Mr. Gunning is himself a submarine designer, and I can only leave this 
point to the experts in this field to sort out! 
