Maybe you should repair to the wardroom and splice the mainbrace, twice.
Sorry, I just couldn't resist the OPV naming suggestion.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Sorry, I just couldn't resist the OPV naming suggestion.Command spaces and room for an embarked staff. The Japanese like to put embarked staff in their own CIC type space.
Brings to mind a much earlier post about possible names for what became the Choules.Considering recent Australian leadership spills maybe they should name them HMAS Rudd, Gillard, Abbott and Turnbull. The rest they can name after bush rangers
About a sailor who's ashamed to tell his mates that he went down on the Gillard.
That's a bit below the belt. He must've been a stoker.
Takao
The Bunker Group
There's a few good names. As OPV / hydro / MCM, I think something like HMAS Flinders or HMAS Tasman (despite the latter not really having much to do with Australia) would be good. And the former carries on the hydro name.
Oh - wait. No. We've ignored all history and policy for the Hunter Class. Perhaps....HMAS *insert politician here*?
I thought it was a brilliant idea myself, but then my opinion would be somewhat biased
Unfortunately Assail isn't that keen on the idea and has gone looking for a chunder emoji. I suspect that might be for the pollies part of the suggestion.
He’s not the only one!
Cut steel on the first is due in the very near future, presumably names (of at least that one) will be announced then?
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Considering who the current GG is they might just get named after Army Generals
, wouldn't that upset the old Salts.
Oi!!!! do you want to spend time in the naughty corner on a diet of hard tack and water? I'm an old salt too LOL.Considering who the current GG is they might just get named after Army Generals
I read somewhere that up until the end of WW2, all bravery awards for the RAN had to go through the British Admiralty unlike the Army and Air Force who were awarded by the Ausgov.
It may explain some of the anomalies such as a VC being awarded to the CO of HMS Jervis Bay and nothing for CO HMAS Yarra in identical circumstances or the fact that RN submarines running the Dardanelles in WW1 were awarded a VC and yet CO AE2, the first to do so was not.
Can anyone expand?
Last edited:
No need to, it's substantially correct, and the example you give is the most inequitable example of the way it failed to work. In part it was the RAN's own fault; preferring to be a defacto part of the RN, while the Army and Air Force had resisted it from WW1, but there's no credit to our politicians who should have acted at the time and did not
oldsig
The situation with AE2 (Stoker) and Holbrook was apparently because Holbrook came back out. Not a great reason noting AE2 ran riot while she was in there.
As for Yarra ..... No idea but the captain of HMS Electra did not get a VC either despite taking his damaged destroyer toward Japanese units to cover the withdrawal of the damaged HMS Exeter.
Same with Acasta and Ardent defending Glorious ...... fundmentally no less brave than Gloworm but different outcome.
It seems quite and uneven system. Always thought Waller deserve that he was awareded.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure i am a huge fan of a Captain of a Warship getting a VC, the VC is usually awarded for acts of individual Valour. A Warship is the most team orientated Military Unit there is and how is the Captains Valour any greater than the Sailors manning a AA Gun or a Stoker who's chances of getting out of a engine room on a sinking Ship is not great.
I think naming a Warship after Personnel who have given outstanding service is a greater Honour and unique to the Navy, the USN is very good at it(unfortunatly they do Pollies as well) and don't discriminate between ranks.
Nearly 100 Australians have VCs but only 7 have HMAS before their name.
I think naming a Warship after Personnel who have given outstanding service is a greater Honour and unique to the Navy, the USN is very good at it(unfortunatly they do Pollies as well) and don't discriminate between ranks.
Nearly 100 Australians have VCs but only 7 have HMAS before their name.
Possibly because the RN considered to Far East a sideshow while their focus was firmly on Europe and the Atlantic. Until the humiliation of Singapore they were probably dismissive of the Japanese and even after this their focus barely changed until India was threatened.
I tend to agree,
However the ships Captain has his actions on the day at his (or her) discretion.
The Captain could elect to "take a lesser course" in his action, so technically it is consistent with individual valour.
Considering the Captain shares his fate with the ship he deploys, its further argument for consideration of the Captains personal gallantry.
Perhaps in the Naval context, considering it is a team based/crewed arena, there would also be some acknowledgment that in order to achieve said level of gallantry the Captain has demonstrated that he runs a tight, efficient ship and his leadership has forged the crew thru the act.
The crew member, whilst not discounting their individual bravery in any way, is in effect spared from the responsibility of the greater decision relating to the deployment of the ship in the act of the gallantry.
Excepting individual crew recognition effecting outcomes, I GUESS the crew gain recognition from in effect a Unit Citation award???
I hope I've explained my point adequately. I'm not discounting any act of courage from any crew member.
I hope my thoughts as I've written them make sense.
Last edited:
That's the situations I was thinking of. Another one was the RANVR commander on one of the mini Subs that attacked Tirpitz was the only one of the captains not awarded a VC. Had Hector Waller been RN instead of RAN he likely would have won one as well.
This seeming bias also brings to mind one of my pet hates when reading history of WW2 post Dunkirk.
When English authors constantly write about the British standing alone. Perhaps some should remember the Commonwealth countries.
Also free French, Poles etc and the various resistance groups.
All the contributions of these people rate little mention in most English histories.
Last edited:
- Status