• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

HMCS Provider

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
260
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.

:cdn:
 

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Pakistani  Tanker  http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/navy/images/moawin.jpg  procured from the dutch.  IT does look very similar to the Provider
 

kincanucks

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
489
Points
880
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,804
Points
910
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

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
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

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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?
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
489
Points
880
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

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Wasn't the Protecteur class based upon a USN tanker that never ended up being commmissioned?
 

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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.


 
Top