Mike, in the tradition of Benjamin Franklin Cooling’s “Gray Steel and
Blue Water Navy: The Formative Years of America’s Military-Industrial
Complex, 1881-1917” brings up a wonderful subject for discussion. I
wish more people in the know would talk about these subjects.

For example, in an odd bit of synchronicity, I was just looking at the
list of ships authorized by FDR’s executive order after the initial New
Deal legislation (the National Industrial Recovery Act of 16 June 1933).
Unsurprisingly, the two CVs were assigned to Newport News, but the 30
cruisers, gunboats, destroyers, and submarines were cleverly spread
throughout eleven states, presumably to take advantage of both
Senatorial and House votes in Congress. It is interesting how much of
our shipbuilding capacity was on the east coast until the war induced
growth later.

Maine
Bath Iron Works: Drayton (DD-366), Lamson (DD-367)

New Hampshire
Portsmouth Navy Yard: Porpoise (SS-172), Pike (SS-173)

Massachusetts
Bethlehem SB Corp (Quincy, Mass.): Vincennes (CL-44)
Boston Navy Yard: Case (DD-370), Conyngham (DD-371)

Connecticut
Electric Boat: Shark (SS-174), Tarpon (SS-175)

New York
New York SB Corp: Savannah (CL-42), Nashville (CL-43), Porter (DD-356),
Selfridge (DD-357), McDougal (DD-358), Winslow (DD-359)
United Dry Dock: Mahan (DD-364), Cummings (DD-365)
New York Navy Yard: Erie (PG-50)

New Jersey
Federal SB & DD: Flusser (DD-368), Reid (DD-369)

Pennsylvania
Philadelphia Navy Yard: Philadelphia (CL-41), Cassin (DD-372), Shaw
(DD-373)

Virginia
Newport News SB & DD: Yorktown (CV-5), Enterprise (CV-6)
Norfolk Navy Yard: Tucker (DD-374), Downes (DD-375)

South Carolina
Charleston Navy Yard: Charleston (PG-51)

Washington
Puget Sound Navy Yard: Cushing (DD-376), Perkins (DD-377)

California
Mare Island Navy Yard: Smith (DD-378), Preston (DD-379)

—-
Timothy L. Francis
Historian
Naval Historical Center
email address: Francis.Timothy@nhc.navy.mil
voice: (202) 433-6802

The above remarks are my opinions, not those of the U.S. Navy or the
Department of Defense

> ———-
> From: Mike Potter[SMTP:mike.potter@artecon.com]
> Reply To: mahan@microworks.net
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 4:38 PM
> To: mahan@microworks.net
> Subject: Mahan list
>
>Weapons production requires political support for funding and that
>support certainly can involve politicians’ personal or parochial
>interests (eg, influence on USN surface combatant production from the
>shipbuilders’ locations in the home states of the SecDef and the Senate
>majority leader). There are limitless possible discussions of political
>and military interactions that we all find useful and illuminating and
>to which all can contribute with interesting opinions, facts,
questions,
>predictions, etc.