Quonset Hut

Quonset Hut Metal Living for a Modern Age

Julie Decker and Chris Chiei, editors

The Anchorage Museum of History and Art in association with the Anchorage Museum Association and the Alaska Design Forum, Alaska Princeton Architectural Press, New York

Preface Julie Decker x Acknowledgments xii

Introduction

The Hut That Shaped a Nation Julie Decker and Chris Chiei xv

Chapter 1

How the Hut Came to Be Chris Chiei 1

Chapter 2

Quonsets, Alaska, and World War II Steven Haycox 31

Chapter 3

War, Design, and Weapons of Mass Construction Brian Carter 47

Chapter 4

After the War: Quonset Huts and Their Integration into Daily American Life Tom Vanderbilt

Chapter 5

63

The Huts That Wouldn’t Go Away: Alaska Adopts the Hut Chris Chiei 105

Chapter 6

Quonsets Today: Concluding Thoughts Julie Decker and Chris Chiei 133 Appendix: Hut Types Notes 150 Image Credits 156 Index 161 Contributors 165

148

Introduction The Hut That Shaped a Nation

xv

Julie Decker and Chris Chiei

Portable architecture was the first fully manmade and inhabited form of architecture.

Over millions of years, it has evolved and has also often been rejected in favor of permanent buildings. Today architecture and permanence are treated as synonyms. The Great Pyramids of Giza are listed as one of the Seven Wonders; medieval cathedrals are celebrated in art history books. These structures are admired because they are grand, and because of their longevity.

The first forms of architecture responded to temporality and, often, portability, serving the mobility of nomadic peoples.

Man’s earliest ancestors sought protection from the elements and predators in natural shelters such as caves and rock overhangs.

Gradually, they learned to improve their caves with inlaid stone floors, walls at the entrances, and fireplaces. But man was a hunter-gatherer and needed to follow his food. So man invented the hut—a small, humble dwelling of simple construction with a simple roof. Evidence of a wooden hut was found at Terra Amata near Nice in France, dating back to the Mindel Glaciation between 450,000 and 380,000 BCE. The hut included a hearth and fireplace and was made by bracing upright branches within a circle of large and small stones. Multiplefamily huts from the Stone Age (ca. 10,000 BCE) have also been discovered. Two huts at the Kostienki site near Alexandrova in the Ukraine accommodated the entire extended

family, one of them measuring more than a hundred feet in length and containing ten small hearths in a row.

The basic hut then remained virtually unchanged for a million years. In the 1600s huts were still used all around the world. The sheepherders of the Sahara Desert built new homes every time their animals moved to a new place. Native Americans in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were experts at building structures from readily available materials that provided sophisticated, and sometimes moveable, shelter.

Some nomadic Native Americans who inhabited the Great Plains lived in portable coneshaped structures called tipis, from ti, which means “dwelling,” and pi, meaning “used for,” in the Sioux language. The dwellings were built by stretching tanned buffalo hides around a frame, which was made of long, vertical poles that leaned inward and joined at the top. When the buffalo migrated, the tribes, following their food source, took down the tipis; domesticated dogs dragged the tipi poles and the skin coverings to the next location—not an easy task.

The Iroquois tribes in central New York state, along the St. Lawrence River and the northern shore of Lake Ontario in the sixteenth century and beyond, called themselves Haudenosaunee (“People building a longhouse”). Several families lived in a longhouse with separate family units connected by a continuous passageway. Over time,

Bomber pilots receiving instruction from Col. W. O. Eareckson, Umnak Island, AK, August 20, 1942

longhouses could be extended as needed, with new family sections added at each end.

Some excavations of former Iroquoian town sites have revealed longhouses measuring as long as four hundred feet. Longhouses were built of saplings—large ones served as posts, flexible ones formed the rounded roof.

From the end of the last Ice Age to the early nineteenth century, when lumber and metal were favored for most structures, the best-known temporary house type of the Arctic region was the igloo, derived from the Inuit word igdlu meaning “house,” a winter house built of the area’s most common material: snow. Snow is packed and cut into blocks for stacking in rows in an upward spiral. The spiral slopes inward toward the top and is capped by a single block. Entry is through a short tunnel made of snow blocks with a rounded roof.

Of all the native dwellings of North America, wooden plank houses of the northwest coast most closely resembled Western architecture, combining aesthetic considerations in addition to functional ones. Built in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries of long boards of cedar, the plank houses had a rectangular shape with a sloping roof and faced the sea or river. The direction of the facade was a typological requirement for the dwellers because they wanted to face the water, which was a source of life—providing food and other basic needs—for them. But even plank houses were temporary, used only from fall to spring. In summer, when communities moved into the forests for fishing and berry gathering, people removed the planks and carried them inland to make temporary shelters there.

xvi

Julie Decker and Chris Chiei

In the 1860s the Hudson Bay Company built a chain of retail stores in British Columbia and Alaska to serve miners during the Gold Rush. In doing so, they invented a building form. The Hudson Bay Company building was a log structure called the Red-river Frame, which adopted the log cabin design that, rather than post-on-sill construction, used logs with dove-tail corners that ran the full length of the wall. The walls were generally twelve to fifteen rounds high, which, combined with a steep-pitch roof, allowed for a spacious attic, often used for the storage of furs and as sleeping quarters for the clerk. These buildings were designed to be erected in remote places.

In 1851, British engineers produced a building called the Crystal Palace, which was designed around prefabricated and demountable modules. The Crystal Palace structure was relocated from the site of the 1851 Great Exhibition in central London to Sydenham in Kent, where it was located until its destruction by fire in 1936. Designed by gardener Joseph Paxton, the Crystal Palace has been called “proto-modern architecture” and was widely imitated in Europe and the U.S. Though not unanimously celebrated in its own time—it was nicknamed the “glass monster”—it made pioneering use of cast-iron structure, prefabricated units, and an antecedent glass curtain wall. It covered nineteen acres of ground and was erected in just nine months, a feat that would have been unthinkable just a decade before. Even after one hundred and fifty years, this achievement has not been duplicated. Britain also innovated a smaller-scale portable building in the nineteenth century.

The Manning Portable Colonial Cottage was the first example of a mass-market, demountable building. It was prefabricated, modular, relatively easy to ship, and easy to erect.

These buildings were transported all over Britain and into North America, and were also converted into prefabricated churches, hospitals, banks, and other facilities. North America didn’t keep the Cottages for long— the model was abandoned in favor of designs developed and sold via the Sears mail-order catalog, such as the Rudolph house plans (1930–32).

Then came the Quonset hut, a key player in the chronology of portable, demountable architecture. The Quonset hut is not unlike its predecessors: for example, it resembled a longhouse, except that Quonsets were metal-clad. But the Quonset hut was not considered architecture. They were created to service the military and the war effort. Particularly after the stress of war, Americans wanted permanence and distance from reminders of the war. They wanted some guarantees. Sure, a Quonset hut provided needed shelter, but few people named it as their first choice for housing. The Quonset hut and its postwar cohort the mobile home were economic solutions. They were less than the Dream.

While the world’s remaining nomadic societies still live in portable structures— Bedouin tents, Mongolian yurts (which only take an hour to erect or dismantle), Tuareg mat huts, and Cambodian “houseboats”— Americans do not embrace the concept.

Motor homes, perhaps, but only if one can return to bricks and mortar after the drive.

While a quarter of all new homes in the U.S.

xvii

The Hut That Shaped a Nation

are mobile homes, Americans have always wanted to see these types of structures, like the Quonset hut, as temporary fixes until something better came along. To keep them would mean failure. After all, you can paint a picket fence on the side of a Quonset hut, but it still looks like a pop can lying on its side.

Today, however, it appears there might be a revival of appreciation for portable architecture. A wide range of forms and sizes are being used in mobile buildings. There are structures that can seat ten thousand people and be erected and dismantled in days.

There are tiny structures that celebrate design at the same time that they celebrate simplicity and mobility. Although relatively few industry-produced portable buildings have been designed for a dedicated user with specific needs in mind, and fewer make use of design precedents (like the Quonset hut), recent advances in materials technology and construction techniques have refashioned and repopularized portable architecture. And with the demand for lower-cost alternatives to escalating housing prices in the U.S., many contemporary architects have responded favorably to this trend.

The Quonset hut is the portable building that has dominated the twentieth century in the U.S. It may even be said that the Quonset hut is making a comeback, albeit with a facelift. As leading designers today have increasingly incorporated new, lowtech, prefabricated, and portable structures into their architectural vocabulary, it is not preposterous to suggest that, if invented today, the Quonset hut would be given a degree of seriousness, respect, and permanence absent during its initial appearance.

Chapter 1 How the Hut Came to Be

1

Chris Chiei

In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, despite the isolationist sentiment within the population at large, began to prepare the United States for war.

Congress authorized an increase in naval appropriation in anticipation, and the Naval Board, in response, recommended the development of twenty-five additional air bases, both in the U.S. and overseas. Included in that list was the shore-based aviation facility at Quonset Point, Rhode Island. The Navy’s Bureau of Yards and Docks began construction on the facility on July 16, 1940. The contract for this work, NOy-4175, was awarded to two organizations—the George A. Fuller and Company and the Merritt-Chapman and Scott Corporation.1 George A. Fuller and Company (hereinafter referred to as Fuller) was one of the largest construction contractors in the U.S. Founded in Chicago in 1882, Fuller led the construction of some of the most important buildings of the twentieth century, such as the Flatiron Building (1902) in New York, an icon of early steel-framed high-rise structures, which served as their headquarters. Fuller also lead the construction of a number of significant Washington landmarks, including the Lincoln Memorial (1918) and the U.S. Supreme Court Building (1933). Fuller’s portfolio also includes significant modern icons such as SOM’s Lever House (1952), Meis van de Rohe’s Seagram Building (1957), and Harrison, Abramovitz & Harris’s United Nations Building (1953).2 The Merritt-Chapman and Scott Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Scott) grew from the mergers of three small salvage operations, the Coastal Wrecking Company

(later reorganized as Merritt’s Wrecking Organization), the Chapman Derrick & Wrecking Company, and T. A. Scott Company. Headquartered in New York City, they established themselves early on as leaders in marine salvage and wrecking operations.3 Following the war, they were involved in such projects as the Throgs Neck Bridge (1961), the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel in Virginia (1964), and the Glenn Canyon Dam (1966).4 Together, Fuller and Scott took on the responsibility for the construction of the base at Quonset Point—their first joint-venture project. This 1,192-acre air station eventually included all necessary facilities for two aircraft-carrier groups and two long-range air-patrol squadrons, as well as facilities for complete plane and engine maintenance.

Normally, such a project was given two years for completion, but due to the urgent need for additional shore-based naval aviation

Isometric drawing of T-Rib Quonset hut, May 10, 1941

Pamphlet from Quonset Point U.S. Naval Air Station, ca. 1945

facilities, the project was finished in less than one year.5 While the base was being raised at Quonset Point, the British Royal Navy was losing a large number of supply vessels to German U-boats. Convoys carrying supplies from North America to Britain desperately needed antisubmarine escorts, but Royal Navy vessels were in short supply. In a bold step to further break America from its isolationist position, President Roosevelt acted on his own authority to negotiate the Destroyers for Bases Agreement with Britain (1940). The agreement included the transfer of fifty overage U.S. World War I destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases on British naval and air facilities in the Bahamas, Jamaica, St. Lucia, Trinidad, Antigua, and British Guiana. Bases at Newfoundland and the islands of Bermuda were included as gifts. The President justified his actions to Congress, stating: “It is an epochal and far-reaching act of preparation for continental defense in the face of grave danger.”6 Fuller and Scott were informed that construction of the base at Argentia, Newfoundland, and provision of equipment to other bases named in the Destroyers for Bases Agreement would be added to the contract already in place for the construction of Quonset Point. The added value of work would essentially double the original contract sum, reaching a projected cost of over $52 million.7

By March of 1941, the Allies were reaching financial crisis on all fronts.

England declared that by June they would no longer be able to purchase supplies and

2

Chris Chiei

arms provided by the U.S. Bound by the Neutrality Act of 1939, the U.S. was not permitted to release arms to any warring country except on “cash and carry” terms.

Circumventing this legislation would prove critical to sustaining U.S. allies and would be necessary for continued preparation for what appeared to be the inevitable involvement of the U.S. in World War II. President Roosevelt crafted the Lend Lease Act, a bill empowering the president to “sell, transfer title to, lend, lease or otherwise dispose of [articles of defense to] the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.”8 The bill also empowered the President to set the terms of repayment as “in kind or property, or any other direct or indirect benefit which the President deems satisfactory.”9 With little resistance from Congress, the bill passed on March 11, 1941. Seven billion dollars were appropriated for its initial funding.

Soon thereafter, Great Britain transferred ownership of properties at Gareloch and Stanraer, in Scotland, and Londonderry and Enniskillen, in Northern Ireland, to be used by the U.S. as forward bases (FOB).10 Since material resources and local labor were all but drained from the British Empire, the U.S. military had no other choice than to supply prefabricated building systems shipped from the U.S. to house their troops.

Quonset Point was selected as the assembly port for all supplies and materials required for the construction of these bases.11 At that time, the base at Quonset Point was nearly complete and Fuller and Scott’s work on supplies for Argentia was

moving forward.12 Admiral Ben Moreell, chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, called a meeting with representatives of Fuller and Scott and Captain R. V. Miller, officer-incharge of construction at Quonset, and revealed the Navy’s desire to develop and produce a new prefabricated hut system to shelter troops abroad.13 These buildings would need to be designed for mass production, able to be portable, erected and knocked down quickly and easily, adaptable to any climate and geography, and provide soldiers with the most protection and comfort possible.14 The mass production of these units and delivery of all other equipment to these advanced bases (AOB),15 were added to the NOy-4175 contract, now under the title of Temporary Aviation Facilities (TAF). The project, now estimated at $20.5 million, was officially set in motion, and the first shipment of huts and supplies needed to be ready by June 1.16

3

How the Hut Came to Be

Fully aware of the deadline at hand, the contractors and the Navy moved quickly to discuss possible locations for the mass production and shipment of building units. It appeared that there were no facilities at Quonset Point that could handle or house such a large operation. With the pier at Quonset Point nearing completion and the railroad spur linking the pier to West Davisville, Rhode Island, now complete, the logical solution was to place the factory outside the existing base at a point along the tracks. This would allow raw materials to arrive via the adjacent New Haven railroad line and the completed units to be shipped across land by rail and overseas by barge.

Designing the Hut On March 30, 1941, the Navy gave the official go-ahead to proceed with work on TAF. With an 85-acre tract of land purchased in

View from above: the factory at West Davisville, ca. 1942

ABOVE: Otto Brandenberger, ca. 1963; OPPOSITE: Otto Brandenberger’s resume, ca. 1953

West Davisville, Fuller’s Engineering team dove into the design of a one-story factory building. According to Fuller the “plans were quickly created, construction gangs were organized, production lines laid out, and storage areas developed. Within forty-eight hours both equipment and material were rolling into the site. Nine days later the first portion of the plant was put into operation.”17 While factory walls were rising at West Davisville, Fuller was assembling an architectural design team to work specifically on the hut design. Otto Brandenberger, the only licensed architect in the group, was selected as the team leader. The other three men, Robert McDonnell, Tomasino Secondino, and Dominic Urgo, would be design and production support.18 Brandenberger was, by all accounts, a leader. Born on March 9, 1894, he was the second of nine children born to Otto Brandenberger, Sr., a police officer, and Louise Knecht. He studied architecture at the Zurich Technical Institute (several of his relatives had been architects) and, following his older cousin Ernest Strassle, also an architect, immigrated to the U.S. in 1913.19 In 1917 Brandenberger enlisted in the U.S. Army in Philadelphia; he reenlisted three years later and eventually attained the rank of sergeant. During the Depression years, he worked for the Works Progress Administration (WPA), generating and reviewing architectural plans of historic New Jersey buildings and the Empire State Building, respectively. He also designed a few residential and small-business buildings in New Jersey before going to work for Fuller.

4

Chris Chiei

McDonnell described Brandenberger and the Quonset design team as “a close knit group and each . . . was equally talented.”20 The four members of the team worked on nearly every phase together. McDonnell described Brandenberger as the team’s true leader: “We did what he told us to do. If anybody gets the credit, it should be Otto Brandenberger.”21 The team was directed to use the British Nissen hut as the starting point for their design. Invented by Lt. Col. Peter Norman Nissen (1871–1930) of the British Royal Engineers, the Nissen hut represented a more suitable alternative to the tent in World War I as it could be used for a variety of functions and was a bit more impervious to weather. Though simple in concept, its construction was more labor intensive than was practical at times.

The genesis of Nissen’s semicircular hut system is said to have been in 1916, while he was a soldier at a military camp in Ypres, Belgium. Inspired by a similar structure that enclosed a hockey rink at Queen’s College in Ontario, he drew a series of sketches showing how the principles of that edifice could apply to a military hut. Upon approval of his ideas by his superior officer, Nissen was transferred to the Twenty-ninth Company Royal Engineers’ general headquarters where he began work on his design.

After three major prototypes, input from his superiors, and modifications made after field use, a 16' x 27’, semicircular, steel-arched structure with corrugated metal cladding inside and out was finalized. This hut became known as the Nissen Bow Hut.

5

How the Hut Came to Be

Nissen also created a 20' x 60' hut known as the Nissen Hospital Hut. More than a hundred thousand Nissen Bow Huts and ten thousand Hospital Huts were fabricated to support British troops during World War I.22 In some circles, these huts are believed to be the first complete, mass-produced building.23 The Nissen hut was considered the leader of hut technology used by either side in World War I and was so successful that it became the only hut mass-produced by the British government toward the end of the war.

Nissen was given full credit for his design by the British Army and, as policy permitted, he patented the hut in numerous countries including Great Britain, the U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Russia, Argentina, South Africa, Belgium, and France. However, in the years that followed, disputes arose over the small royalties offered by the British Government, who later sold these huts to other countries without the consent of, or compensation to, Nissen.24 Brandenberger’s team used the Nissen hut as their starting point. The Navy had instructed them to comply with only two LEFT: Men in Ireland erect a Nissen hut, March 25, 1942; RIGHT: U.S. Troops march by Nissen huts, Ireland, February 1942

6

Chris Chiei

conditions: the new huts had to be arch shaped, for strength and deflection of shell fragments, and able to be quickly and simply assembled.25 While factory walls were rising to house the production of the new huts, the team worked around the clock on the development of the original version of the Quonset hut, later identified as the T-Rib Quonset.

According to Fuller and McDonnell, the team analyzed Nissen’s design and immediately abandoned all but its general shape. Fuller claimed, “The British had been on the right track but too many gadgets slowed erection; and with no insulation between inner and outer metal shells the Nissen huts were hot in the summer and cold in the winter.”26 Fuller’s assessment was correct, but Fuller and McDonnell’s claim of an almost complete redesign of the hut is slightly exaggerated; there were striking similarities in the structural system and materials used in both. Where Brandenberger’s team truly advanced beyond the Nissen hut was in the design of the hut’s interior. Both systems were built from the inside out—first laying the interior wall against the inner flange of

the T-Rib arch and then working out to the corrugated metal exterior. The last version of Nissen’s design utilized an interior wall surface of corrugated metal panels with ribs oriented horizontally. The panels were strapped tight to the arch flange by metal cables run radially over the top. Corrugated metal strips, nicknamed “the slide,” were also used to join and seal one panel to the next. This assembly was deemed overly complicated by Brandenberger’s team. Furthermore, the insulating qualities of Nissen’s hut depended solely on the air space remaining between the inner and outer metal sheet. This may have been an acceptable solution for a war fought in the temperate climates of central Europe, but it would not adapt itself well to the arctic cold of Newfoundland or the desert heat of the Sahara. Brandenberger’s team proposed a thin, lightweight pressed-wood lining of 3/16-inch Masonite held to the rib flange with a attachment clip, and then overlaid with a one-inch-thick layer of wading paper insulation. According to Fuller, the “new designs were worked out and experimental huts were made by hand, erected, tested, revised, and improved until, by the time the first section of the plant was ready, a light, easily crated and easily erected assembly had been perfected.”27 The first known construction drawings for the T-Rib Quonset were submitted by Brandenberger’s team on April 4, 1941.28 Although the official drawing title read “16' x 36' Hut,” the contract correspondence accompanying the drawing described the enclosure as a “Nissen type hut for Temporary Aviation Facilities.”29

7

How the Hut Came to Be

On April 10, 1941, the Bureau of Yards and Docks, in the Partial Summary of Equipment, officially authorized an order of 2,488 “Nissen” huts for the Scotland and Northern Ireland bases.30 Not long after, Lieutenant Commander E. S. Huntington increased the order to 4,000 huts, then again to 8,000 huts. In order to keep pace with the growing requests for huts and the shorter turnaround time allowed to produce them, Fuller placed large quantities of building components on order while design refinements were still being tested and approved.

One production detail of particular concern was the corrugated-metal siding of the hut exterior. The team wanted to orient the ribs of the corrugation parallel to the radius of the building as in the Nissen hut. This was a logical decision for shedding water, but a problematic one for production. At that time, techniques for bending sheet metal in one direction, as in the case of the corrugated sheet, was commonplace. To bend that same material, once again, at an angle perpendicular to the first, required a level of controlled deformation that proved difficult to execute. The problem was finally solved by a Fuller subcontractor, the Anderson Sheet Metal Company of Providence, who proposed a system in which the sheet metal was passed through large rollers multiple times.

Although the solution was a success, the sound generated from the process resulted in one of the least desirable work environments on the production line. McDonnell recalled, “The noise it made! All kinds of tortured squealing! You’d go bananas if you didn’t keep you ears plugged.”31

CLOCKWISE FROM LEFT: Corrugated metal is run through rollers at the factory for use on T-Rib Quonset huts, Davisville, RI, ca.

1941; Factory workers and engineers test build a T-Rib Quonset hut, West Davisville, RI, ca. 1941; Quonset huts ready to ship out by barge from Quonset Point, ca. 1941; Contract correspondence increasing the order for Quonset huts (note continued use of the term “Nissen Hut�), June 21, 1941

A final set of construction drawings was submitted by Brandenberger’s team on May 15, 1941. All drawings were examined, approved by Captain Miller, and returned a week later with signatures affixed, ready to release for fabrication.32 These approvals seem to have been a formality considering that the production line was already up and running.

On June 11, 1941, the vessel Empire Gull docked at the Quonset Point pier. A total of 450,000 cubic yards of materials and supplies, of an estimated value of almost $1.2 million, was prepared for loading. Included were a number of crates containing the first run of huts to leave the assembly line. In less than one month’s time, Fuller had created a fully operational, mass-production facility generating huts on a scale that represented an annual output of $22 million per year.33 Specialty Huts Brandenberger’s team subsequently adapted the T-Rib Quonset huts to specialized functions. Each specialized hut plan indicated the building modifications necessary to make the conversion and the location of equipment necessary for that particular design. Included were provisions for interior partitions, dormer windows, and concrete floors. Adjustments were made for huts sent to tropical climates in the form of increased venting, watercollection troughs, and overhangs created by inset bulkheads. In the tropical unit, the oil heater and vent stack were replaced by a third ventilator. Additional components for specialized huts were crated separately and shipped along with standardized units as

9

How the Hut Came to Be

required. In total, forty-one design variations, including a dispensary/surgical hut, a laboratory, laundry facility, pharmacy, dental facility, hospital ward, barbershop, morgue, guard house, and tailor shop, served a multitude of needs for the military’s forward bases. Each hut cost between $800 and $1,100 to produce.34 In addition to specialized designs, numerous field modifications were commonly made to Quonset huts once they arrived at their destination. In Alaska, residual framing lumber was often used to create arctic entries, separate enclosed entrances that trapped the cold air from entering the Quonset hut itself, while in the tropics, numerous configurations for venting and shading were adapted as necessary.

Although the huts were conceived as structures requiring no foundation, foundations were sometimes added, varying greatly depending on the slope of the site, the conditions of soils, the availability of local materials, and the urgency of construction. When built as part of larger facilities, huts were used in part, in whole, or in multiple units.

Earlier versions rolled off the assembly line unpainted; later versions would include a factory-applied coat of olive-drab paint. To reduce the chance of being spotted from the air, most all were painted or repainted onsite to blend with the local landscape.35 Design Refinements On May 23, 1941, Admiral Moreell forwarded six full sets of construction drawings of the T-Rib Quonset, under the heading “Nissen Huts,” to the commanding general of the

Specialized hut design for a Tailor Shop, October 15, 1941; PREVIOUS SPREAD: Isometric drawing of T-Rib Quonset hut, May 10, 1941.