# HMCS Provider



## Sub_Guy (11 Jul 2006)

I have sailed with this ship out east numerous times, it was a very ugly ship to say the least, but it was capable of hauling a big load of fuel.

I was wondering if there is any truth to the stories that I always hear.  The story of it being a civilian vessel which was then converted after the fact to a Naval supply ship.  All my research so far indicates the complete opposite, that it was a naval design from the beginning.  I have also read that it had a crew of 192?   And our current Protecteur class are crewed at around 300?

Thanks


----------



## Navy_Blue (12 Jul 2006)

Can't say for sure but I saw a Pakistani (Ex RN) AOR that looked like it could have been her twin in Portsmouth For the Queens Jubilee.  I would guess she was a design already in use by the commonwealth in the sixties and we just copied her and built her in Quebec.  

But again its only a guess.


----------



## kincanucks (12 Jul 2006)

http://www.wellandcanal.ca/shiparc/warships/provider/provider.htm


----------



## Sub_Guy (12 Jul 2006)

Pakistani  Tanker   http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/navy/images/moawin.jpg   procured from the dutch.   IT does look very similar to the Provider


----------



## kincanucks (12 Jul 2006)

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> Pakistani  Tanker   http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/navy/images/moawin.jpg   procured from the dutch.   IT does look very similar to the Provider



Yes it does slightly but there are many differences. It has been a few years since my ship recce days so I did up a side by side for comparison.


----------



## bison33 (13 Jul 2006)

Never seen 300 on the Protecteur...I was attach posted to her for 2 yrs (airdet) and when we went to the gulf 4 yrs ago, we had 240-260 or so(cannot remember the exact numbers)...she had to steal folks from other ships to man the damn thing so we could go.....in a perfect navy (Ha!, like it ever existed), the tankers would sail at full complement...but we all know about man power issues....ask the HMCS Huron...........

The Navy...100 years of tradition, unimpeded by progress ;D


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Jul 2006)

I spent 3 years on Preserver and just recently was on board to help pass work-ups! Tanker man for life!

But yes Provider was a civilian tanker that was bought by the RCN and converted to mil specs. It was from her trial and error that the specs for the Protecteur class was laid down. 

Provider was only ever meant to be a test bed and stop gap filler until Protecteur and Preserver both came online. 

Intresting fact she had open jungle decks which meant that in heavy weather they were out of bounds thus trapping the crew in either the fwd hours or aft house until  things calmed down!


----------



## Sub_Guy (14 Jul 2006)

See here is my problem, I keep hearing that she was a civilian tanker, bought by the RCN and converted but I have never read that anywhere.  

The information I have located has the Navy ordering it 15 April 1958, Laid down 1 May 1961, Launched 5 July 1962, and Commissioned 28 September 1963.

Since I have only heard the civilian tanker purchase story from sailors, I was wondering if this is some sort of folklore or something.


----------



## kincanucks (14 Jul 2006)

_But yes Provider was a civilian tanker that was bought by the RCN and converted to mil specs. _ 

Well this must be a hidden consipary that is now just coming to light.

*From Janes:

CONSTRUCTION
  Builder - Davie Shipbuilding Ltd.
  Country - Lauzon, Quebec, Canada

Presentation given to the House of Commons on July 9th, 1963 by Vide-Admiral H.S. Rayner, Chief of Naval Staff.

The Provider is a large ship, 22,000 tons, 551 feet in length, a beam of 76 feet and a draught of 30 feet. She will have a top speed of 20 knots and a crew of 159. She is being built in Lauzon, Quebec.*


HH


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Jul 2006)

> Never seen 300 on the Protecteur...



I went to Gulf War 1 on PRO as the Air Defence Artillery Troop Commander.  I seem to recall that we sailed from Halifax with just over 300 onboard, including Sea Trg Staff- and there were still spare bunks to be had.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jul 2006)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> *From Janes:*



Oh! Oh!  You quoted from Janes.....and we know that they do make mistakes.  This is an interesting question though.  Perhaps you are both right.  It was built by Davie originally as a Civilian ship, but was flipped over in a sale to the Navy, and then converted to Mil Specs at Davie shipyards, in some of the wheeling and dealing that sometimes goes on in the back rooms of Ottawa.  

Just to add to the conspiracy.   ;D


----------



## FredDaHead (14 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> in some of the wheeling and dealing that *sometimes* goes on in the back rooms of Ottawa.



Sometimes, George? You're an optimist, aren't you?


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Jul 2006)

I'm a Tanker Wanker and agree, she was a civilian order which was taken over by the RCN.  Lessons learned from her went into the design of her replacements.  (closed jungle deck, hydraulic vice handraulic valves for the HT's, enclosed dispersal area etc.)  I did sail a trip on her too. 

Sadly she was sent to the ship breakers in 02 I believe in Turkey. I did hear rumors she was being bought to be used as a coastal tanker for Aegean sea, but then read of her demise later.  What would have gone against her was her single hull.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Jul 2006)

Jollyjacktar! 

Good to see you old boy! Its yoru favorite storesman! No names of course! 

Im off to TFA on tuesday wish me luck and take care of my ship until i return! lol


----------



## bison33 (14 Jul 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I went to Gulf War 1 on PRO as the Air Defence Artillery Troop Commander.  I seem to recall that we sailed from Halifax with just over 300 onboard, including Sea Trg Staff- and there were still spare bunks to be had.



So then.......a new troop commander at the time?  I was AD (U bty and 119 bty) for 6 yrs before remustering in 88....and the navy had more folks to man the ships back then
when were you in Pat Bay?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Jul 2006)

Wasn't the Protecteur class based upon a USN tanker that never ended up being commmissioned?


----------



## Sub_Guy (15 Jul 2006)

OK I know that sailors who have sailed on the provider all say the same thing, I don't beleive it as I have only heard it from sailors mouths.


I heard stories of it being bought (built) and then converted after the fact, and variations to that story, I am in doubt as I haven't read that anywhere, I can't locate any references.  I just assume that it was a shitty design, and this "rumour" got started and stuck hard.

Just like the Mcdonalds on the CVN's


----------



## Rhibwolf (15 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Oh! Oh!  You quoted from Janes.....and we know that they do make mistakes.



In fact, according to the link posted above, she was decommissioned in 88, despite the fact that many of my friends sailed in her well  into the 90s.......


----------



## Sub_Guy (15 Jul 2006)

Decommissioned after the MARCOT 98 exercise (which was a big one),  I was there.  Just because someone sailed on it, and they can tell a good story, does not mean much.  Especially if the story is passed via word of mouth, there are quite a few sailors out there that know squat about the vessel they are on.


----------



## Sub_Guy (16 Jul 2006)

OK so I got this from the book "Ships of Canada's Naval Forces 1910-2002".

"PROVIDER was designed and built for the Canadian Navy in the early 1960s"   No mention of any civilian design, or conversion.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Jul 2006)

Good to see you Halifax Tar as well.   :cheers:


----------



## FMRMSNESOP (13 Aug 2006)

I've probably done 500 fuellings off the Provider during my years, 1981-1991 in the Navy. Does anyone else remember the old tale of her going through the panama canal back in the 70's with a wooden gun on her Forecastle, to prevent having to pay passage fees? Any merit to it?

Mike


----------



## kincanucks (13 Aug 2006)

FMRMSNESOP said:
			
		

> I've probably done 500 fuellings off the Provider during my years, 1981-1991 in the Navy. Does anyone else remember the old tale of her going through the panama canal back in the 70's with a wooden gun on her Forecastle, to prevent having to pay passage fees? Any merit to it?
> 
> Mike



Heard the same thing too.  What did you do?  Go down for the Rose Festival and stay?


----------



## FMRMSNESOP (17 Aug 2006)

Yeah, pretty much. I had a boss that was trying desperately to run me out. I had met a woman here at Rose festival, and after a year, got out and moved here. Can't say I don't regret the career decision, but I don't regret the marriage or moving here. Last weekend, I was in Esquimalt for a buddy's retirement party. He joined 3 months before I did.

Mike


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Aug 2006)

- Last weekend, I was in Esquimalt for a buddy's retirement party. He joined 3 months before I did.


By chance, are your buddy's initials PH?

whiskey601


----------



## FMRMSNESOP (21 Aug 2006)

Actually no, his initials were R.H., but I know who PH is. He's a C1 at Sea-training. We were both MasterSeamen together on the Rusty-guts.

Mike


----------



## STONEY (27 Aug 2006)

I was at Davie shipyard when Provider was being built and can assure you it was built from scratch for the Navy and was not in any respect a converson. It had a big honkin Navy crest built into the bow during build.  The RAS equipment was ordered by the yard from Scotland with long lead times before installed onboard as were  much of the engineering equipment.  She was built with a flight deck and big honking aircraft hanger and huge dry & refridgerated  storerooms plus ammunition magazines in addition to fuel tanks so was of Naval construction from the start.

Cheers Stoney.


----------



## LRTDMO (20 Aug 2014)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I have sailed with this ship out east numerous times, it was a very ugly ship to say the least, but it was capable of hauling a big load of fuel.
> 
> I was wondering if there is any truth to the stories that I always hear.  The story of it being a civilian vessel which was then converted after the fact to a Naval supply ship.  All my research so far indicates the complete opposite, that it was a naval design from the beginning.  I have also read that it had a crew of 192?   And our current Protecteur class are crewed at around 300?
> 
> Thanks


she crewed 11 officers and 131 men . i sailed on her from 83-86


----------

