31 August ......last of the rum

**Anav** · 08-31-2013, 09:50

On 31 August 1862, the last daily rum was issued to US Navy sailors on board vessels. By an Act of Congress on 14 July, the issue of spirit rations ceased on board US Navy vessels on 1 September. Note, Secretary Welles issued a further order requiring captains of naval vessels to remove all distilled liquors from their ships except those that serve as medical stores. “Ale, beer, wine, and other liquors not distilled” were exempted from the provisions of the act of 14 July.
Read more about Alcohol in the Navy:
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq32-1.htm --

**David Manley** · 08-31-2013, 10:54

A dark day indeed for the USN, and the first step on the path that has led to secondments and invitations to RN wardrooms and messes being so popular for our cousins

**7eat51** · 08-31-2013, 13:26

Here's another article from 1914 on the prohibition of alcohol usage in the Navy: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...DC405B848DF1D3

**Naharaht** · 08-31-2013, 19:50

Did it lead to an improvement in efficiency and discipline?

**csadn** · 09-02-2013, 14:12

Originally Posted by Naharaht

Did it lead to an improvement in efficiency and discipline?

[looks at current size of USN vs. all others...] >;)

**David Manley** · 09-02-2013, 17:03

Originally Posted by Naharaht

Did it lead to an improvement in efficiency and discipline?

Unlikely to have had any significant effect. Other navies of similar levels of discipline and performance didn't go "dry".

**David Manley** · 09-04-2013, 16:02

Originally Posted by csadn

[looks at current size of USN vs. all others...] >;)

[wonders what that has to do with efficiency and discipline...] :)

Seriously though, whilst discipline in the US Navy is at the upper end of what I'd expect from a decent navy (and I've experienced many around the world), efficiency in many quarters isn't exactly wonderful. R&D and procurement if pretty poor, but not surprising given the pork belly influences (having run some side-by-side R&D programmes with the US we observed the output from the UK and the Netherlands was about 2-3 times what our US colleagues were getting buck for buck - and in some cases an order of magnitude greater). And there are some interesting "challenges" regarding manning (although I'd rather be in the "too many" rather than "too few" camp when it comes to crew numbers, as some of our overseas chums are driving themselves)

**Anav** · 09-04-2013, 17:50

"too many" sounds good until you have to hot rack!

**David Manley** · 09-04-2013, 23:40

Originally Posted by Anav

"too many" sounds good until you have to hot rack!

Of design the ship to carry all of them plus their bunks, kit, rec spaces, food, plus the extra steel, fuel, bigger engines etc. IIRC one of the rules of thumb was each man saved in terms of complement reduced the through life cost of the platform by $2 million. Mind you, that was 10 years ago. The fag packet number is going to be rather bigger now I guess.

**csadn** · 09-05-2013, 16:16

Originally Posted by David Manley

R&D and procurement if pretty poor, but not surprising given the pork belly influences (having run some side-by-side R&D programmes with the US we observed the output from the UK and the Netherlands was about 2-3 times what our US colleagues were getting buck for buck - and in some cases an order of magnitude greater).

This much I'll grant -- in some ways, the modern US has the same problems as the United Provinces of the Netherlands back into the Age of Sail: Seven provinces, each demanding it's "fair share"; so one ends up with a fleet containing upwards of *21* Admirals (seven provincial fleets; three admirals per fleet -- van, center, and rear...). And the less said of naval vessels being named for politicians, the better. (When the USN names an aircraft carrier for Charles McVey, I *might* be inclined to forgive them.)