Talk:Borinquen (1930)

Removed from article during cleanup

(Note- What I have about this line is several documents from when my grandfather went on them, and the documents are in Sweedish German, while I only know basic Plattdeutche, so I'm not that good at translating).

Name, dates and expansion from stub

This ship served most of its notable career as Borinquen, including a rather notable AND well documented career as USAT Borinquen in which she was one of the few U.S. Army troop transports at Normandy. The date 1931 is that which is found in Lloyd's register and many other sources. The 1930 date is certainly when laid down and possibly the launch date (need citable source), but Lloyd's 1930—31 shows that date stricken with 1931 substituted as well as another interesting change from "3 Geared Steam Turbines" to "2 SR Geared Steam Turbines" indicating a possible change in design during construction. Both the passenger ship career prewar and wartime Army service can be subjects of major expansion. Palmeira (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there a chance to narrow down when in 1941 the US military took the ship for a troop ship? Ancestry.com (and possibly other sites on line) have a passenger list for the ship arriving in the port of New York Nov 3, 1941, still in apparent civilian use. The portion of the list I saw was of those with American citizenship, by birth or naturalization, the normal sort of list made for passenger ships entering at New York. Is it reasonable to assume that the military took over the ship after November 3 1941? Where does one look for more precise information? --Prairieplant (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. MARAD vessel status card has exact dates, even effective hour, and detailed status. The ship was operated by Agwiline as WSA agent, meaning the line's personnel crewed the ship with an Army TC component aboard for administrative purposes. Just before Normandy the ship changed status to full Army TC sub bareboat chartered (Army had all responsibility for crewing, repairs and so on) until the arrangement reverted to Agwiline operation 5 February 1946 for the brief time before return to the line as owner. By the way, some may be confused by "sub bareboat" that Larson in The Army's Cargo Fleet In World War II describes as:

The main difference between the sub-bareboat and the bareboat types of charter lies in the fact that the latter (bareboat) covers vessels to which the War Shipping Administration holds title, whereas the former (subbareboat) applies to vessels not owned but chartered by that agency.

The control exercised by the Army over bareboat and sub-bareboat chartered vessels is exactly the same. Both types are manned, operated, maintained and repaired by the Army for use on Army missions. They are assigned to specific Army ports or theaters, and they perform the same functions as do the owned cargo transports. At present (April 1945) there are approximately 30 such ships (Army transports and interisland vessels) principally engaged in carrying cargo for the Army.

So, in this case the status card with "(sub)BB" is noting Agwiline retained ownership to the ship chartered by WSA which in turn had Agwiline operating the vessel until just before operation was taken over fully by TC for Normandy. Palmeira (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you Palmeira! That is the precises information needed and you put it in the article quite clearly, well referenced. That Status card tells the story. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Given the new title for the article, the opening line in the lead does not make sense. I am awake enough to see that, but not awake enough to rewrite it. --Prairieplant (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. Not all that awake myself but changed the intro on that and to give a bit more for mobile users that do not see the full article in one view. Palmeira (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Good lead now and it matches the title of the article, Palmeira. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Nickname—dubious origin

"She never came under attack by enemy forces, leading a charmed life and soon earned her nickname of 'Lucky Star.'" appears in some of the recent references focused on Arosa Star and wreck. There is no indication in any WW II sources of such a nickname and, perhaps telling, there was no close association with "star" for the ship until after acquisition by Arosa. Therefore the nickname appears to be something added well after the war by popular sources associated with the wreck. As currently written it appears the ship was known by this nickname during the war and has the sound of PR hype. If it was applied in publicity after the Arosa period or even during the wreck publicity that source and point needs to be clear. The text is an exact quote from La Jenelle that pertains to the wreck and may contain other errors about the wartime period. Palmeira (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)