As Ralph pointed out, and I had discovered, the main reason for the creation of the WT3C rate appears to be to equalize the pay grade. I also think that by the end of 1943 the navy realized they needed a lot more water tenders for all the new ships being produced. My Dad, for example, was one of six Fireman 1st or 2nd class transferred off the Farragut for assignment to new ship construction.
As for the MM vs WT difference: machinist mate ratings were for the crew in the engine rooms; water tender ratings were for the fire rooms. Even within the fire rooms there were differences in assignments: blowerman, checkman, and chief tender of the watch (for WT1Cs).
Most of this I had already discovered in the research of my Dad’s naval history and book I’m now writing. I was hoping to find more substantial information behind the navy’s reasoning. I’m thinking I need to spend time in the national archives, along with the destroyer history museum in Massachusetts.
Thanks!
Art
Art,
I frequently seem to have the "other" (wrong) viewpoint on a discussion, and if that is again the case, I apologize.
Seems to me that there are two ways to look at the question:
1) why a WT rating?
2) Why the 3rd class WT rate?
1) The WT is the guy who took care of the boiler and associated machinery. If the ship had separate engine rooms and firerooms (boilerrooms), then the WT folks (WT3C through CWT) were the ones who worked in the firerooms. The MMs were the ones who worked in the enginerooms.
2) It appears that none of the Engineering ratings had a 3rd class rate prior to 1943. So the question could have been "why WT3c or why MM3c, or any of the rest?"
Q: Why did a guy get assigned as a WT instead of a MM?
A: Where was the next man needed?
A1: Which engineering space had the guy requested to be assigned to? (fat chance)
For what it's worth, this page at https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Watertender has an error, although I'm not sure of the exact dates. At least from 1970 through the 1996, the name for the "son of WT" was Boiler Technician, not Boilerman. I don't know if that title was ever correct. Every once in a while, a sailor didn't even know the formal name for his own rating, just like folks sometimes struggle to put ship classifications in a tidy box (FF is not "Fast Frigate", so what is a DD?) Therefore, I began my Navy career as an Aviation Electronics Technician(AT) although some would swear that the correct title was Avionics Technician.
Rick
I’m looking for some background information on why the US Navy created the WT3C rating and how crewman were chosen for training in that role in WW 2. Any help or sources you know of would be greatly appreciated.
Happy Modeling!
Art Rohloff
Hayward, WI
Responses