JOURNAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN NAVAL INSTITUTE … · Janes Fighting Ships: A History — G.Andrews 23...

Registered by Australian PostPublication No. NBP 0282

ISSN 0312-5807

VOLUME 11NOVEMBER 1985NUMBER 4

JOURNAL OF THEAUSTRALIAN NAVAL

INSTITUTE(INCORPORATED IN THE ACT)

AUSTRALIAN NAVAL INSTITUTE INC

1. The Australian Naval Institute Inc is incorporated in the Australian Capital Territory. The mamobjects of the Institute are:

a to encourage and promote the advancement of knowledge related to the Navy and the maritimeprofession,

b to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas concerning subjects related to the Navy and themaritime profession, and

c to publish a journal

2 The Institute is self supporting and non-profit making The aim is to encourage discussion, dis-semination of information, comment and opinion and the advancement of professional knowledgeconcerning naval and maritime matters

3 Membership of the Institute is open to —

a Regular Members - Members of the Permanent Naval Forces of Australia

b Associate Members - (1) Members of the Reserve Naval Forces of Australia

(2) Members of the Australian Military Forces and the Royal AustralianAir Force both permanent and reserve.

(3) Ex-members of the Australian Defence Force, both permanentand reserve components, provided that they have been honourablydischarged from that Force

(4) Other persons having and professing a special interest in naval andmaritime affairs

c Honorary Members - Persons who have made distinguished contributions to the naval ormaritime profession or who have rendered distinguished service to theInstitute may be elected by the Council to Honorary Membership

4. Joining fee for Regular and Associate members is $5. Annual subscription for both is $20.

5 Inquiries and application for membership should be directed to

The Secretary,Australian Naval Institute Inc.PO Box 80CAMPBELL ACT 2601

CONTRIBUTIONS

In order to achieve the stated aims of the Institute, all readers, both members and non-members, areencouraged to submit articles for publication Preferably, submissions should be typed, double spaced, onA4 paper, the author's name and address must be shown clearly, even if a pseudonym is reguired forprinting purposes; to be eligible for prizes, original articles must be accompanied by statements that theyhave been written expressly for the ANI; and short biographies will be welcomed The Editor reserves theright to reject or amend articles for publication

DISCLAIMER

Views expressed in this journal are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the Departmentof Defence, the Chief of Naval Staff or the Institute

Printed by Canberra Publishing and Printing Co., Fyshwick, A.C.T.

TITLE CONTENTS PAGE

From the Editor 3President's Report 5Review of Membership Provisions 6From the Treasurer 7Chapter News 7Auditor's Report 8Warships For The Royal Australian Navy 1945-85- Rear Admiral W.J. Rourke AOMEcCEng FRINA FIE Aust RAN 13Janes Fighting Ships: A History— G.Andrews 23The Salvage of Warship Vasa— Captain A.M.R. Brecht RAN 25HMS Sirius: Voyage to the Cape of Good Hope— R.Jones 33Now We Are 21 ... Well, Almost— Lieutenant Commander E.J. Coles RAn 41The Mary Rose-P. Trick 43Washington Notes-T. Friedmann 49

James Craig: A Restoration Project 53John Bastock: Sailor and Artist— AZammit 55Soldier Sailors — Sailor Soldiers— Lieutenant J.H. Straczek RAN 59A Link with the Past-V.Jeffery 63Of Ships and the Sea 65Answers to August Crossword 66Book Reviews 67Air Mail Rates 69Advertising Information 69Naval Institute Insignia 71Application for Membership 72

Articles or condensations are not to be reprinted or reproduced without the permission of theInstitute. Extracts may be quoted for the purposes of research, review or comment provided thesource is acknowledged.

Cover: HMAS Albatross — a photograph of a painting by John Bastock (page 55)

Journal of the Australian Naval Institute. Nov 85 — Page 1

^ KOCKUMS

dtunigXB, Box 83^^20180 Malmo, SwedenTelephone: +46-40-761400, Telex: 33190 kockum « —.

Page 2 — Nov 85, Journal ol the Australian Naval Institute

FROM THE EDITOR

This edition of the Journal sees a change of editor. I would like to think that without this adviceyou would not have noticed for this would demonstrate success in my endeavour to maintain theexcellent standard set by Geoff Cutts. Geoff is retiring from the Service to confront newchallenges-in the field of adult education and in Queensland. Tribute to his contribution to theInstitute is paid elsewhere in the Journal by longer-serving Councillors than me; however. Iwelcome this opportunity to add my tribute — given added sincerity by my recent insight into thecomplexity of his editorial role — and best wishes for his next career.

The theme for this edition is maritime history. That interest in the area is wide may be gauged bythe surfeit of contributions — in fact on this count I am almost grateful for the mail disruption whichdelayed some copy beyond the deadline thus easing the selection process and providing a basisfor the next edition. I trust though that reporting this situation will not breed complacency withinregular contributors nor discourage the uninitiated. A reasonable assumption is that membershipindicates committment to the Institute's aims. These demand the expression of the membership'sviews on maritime and related matters to broaden and stimulate development of the professionand its individuals.

The coverage is broad. It ranges chronologically from the early 17th Century, throughcolonization, Federation and to the present RAN Fleet; geographically from Scandinavia, throughTudor England and Reagan USA to Australia; and in focus from ships through their salvage andthe people who operate them, to those who care for the people.

Special attention is drawn to the Institute Reports published in this edition. The Treasurer'sReport and audited accounts are printed for your information. The President's Report reviews theyear's activities. It also discusses Council's intention to review the rules pertaining to membershipof the Institute. Your consideration of this fundamental question, in the light of the President'scomments and the separate amplifying statement on membership provisions, and response to theCouncil is sought.

The next edition will have no specific theme so offers scope for all to express their views,doubts, observations and ideas The deadline for copy is 20 January 1986, a date chosen to allowNew Year resolutions to become a contributor, to be implemented. Contributions are acceptable inany format; new contributors are encouraged to use articles published in this edition as a guide ifnecessary. Inclusion of a short biography is appreciated. Your early advice of intention tocontribute too is welcome since this allows the edition to be shaped progressively up to theprinting deadline. Note that this edition lacks a Correspondence column. This is not an oversight— no-one wrote to me. Please, if your are constrained against (or not noved towards) contributingan article or piece, then participate in affairs through the 'letters' column.

John Hyman(062—67 6656)

Journal of the Australian Naval Institute, Nov '85 — Page 3

• AA guns and missiles • Field artillery • Combat vehicles • Special ammunition • Anti-tank guns and missiles

Army weaponsKnow-how and advanced technology havemade Bofors front runners in the developmentand manufacture of army weapons.Our anti-tank missile BILL is just the latestexample of our ability to find new and uncon-ventional methods of solving customerproblems.

Being manufacturers of both weapons andammunition gives Bofors unique resources todevelop complete weapon systems.

BOFORSORDNANCE

Box 500. S-691 80 BOFORS. SwedenTelephone: (0)586-81000 Telex 73210 bolors s

Page 4 — Nov 85. Journal of the Australian Naval Institute

1984-85 — PRESIDENT'S REPORTThe 10th anniversary year of the Australian Naval Institute, has been one of progress and

consolidation.The Journal continues to be the essence of the Institute. It has maintained its high standard and

the number and quality of contributors have been impressive. I particularly enjoyed thecontribution from our younger members in the 10th Anniversary issue and echo the editor'ssentiments that more such people will begin to write to him.

Membership of the Institute has remained about the same with 600 individual members, 74Defence subscribers and 54 non-defence subscribers. New members balanced out theunfinancial individuals who have been struck from the membership list. Once again considerableadministrative effort has been expended chasing overdue subscriptions.

The financial status of the Institute continues to be satisfactory with a modest increase in our networth to about $24,000. The Treasurer's statement follows my report.

During the year there has been a marked improvement in the level of Chapter activity outsideCanberra as well as positive developments towards establishing a sound pattern of liaisonbetween Chapters and Council.

At the beginning of the year there were four active Chapters: Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne andPerth. Since then the Council has approved formation of Chapters in Brisbane and Hobart andconsideration is being given to establishing Chapters in Adelaide, Cairns, Darwin and the Nowraarea.

The basic objectives of the ANI can only be met if Chapters are active and strong and able tofocus the attention of their community on maritime matters. I regard the expansion of the numberof Chapters as heartening therefore. However, Chapters also need to increase the number ofactive supporters if they are to grow in strength and I hope the successes we have had during thepast year, and other proposals I will make later, will provide the stimulus for this to happen.

Distinguished speakers to Chapters during the year included Admiral Thomas B. Hayward USN(Retd), a former Chief of Naval Operations. Admiral Hayward's successful visit to Australia wassponsored by the Navy League of Australia in conjunction with the ANI. His address to theCanberra Chapter was published in the August Journal.

For the future I look forward to a period of invigorating Chapter activity. In 1986, the 75thAnniversary of the RAN, I hope that all Chapters will sponsor speakers in support of the Navy'scelebrations.

An outline plan for Seapower 87 has been endorsed by the outgoing Council recommendingthat the next seminar be held in Canberra in September or October 1987 with the theme 'Australia— A Maritime Nation'. Active consideration was given to other venues but for a variety of reasonsit was determined that it would not be practical to hold the next seminar outside Canberra.Planning for Seapower 87 will be an important activity in the coming year.

During the year ANI Silver Medals were presented to Ms Elizabeth Cowan and LieutenantCommander M.J. Taylor, students at the RAN Staff College. Their winning essays have beenpublished in the Journal.

In August your Council made an important decision to invest more than $3000 in computingequipment capable of running the ANI Management System developed by Commander Cutts. Atthe same time as procuring the equipment and the software we have charged a councillor withresponsibility for custody and operation of the system.

In my last report I identified the key objective: In the light of 10 years' association, examinewhether any significant changes should be made to the ANI to further its aims'.

The fundamental issue is whether 'Regular Membership' should be extended to includemembers other than full time members of the Permanent Naval Forces. Whilst the Institute may becontinuing to meet its objectives it must be recognised that its influence beyond the smalldedicated membership is very limited and that we cannot expect more than a modest increase innumbers (and thus Chapter size) under the present membership rules.

The basis for Regular and Associate Membership has been under discussion for some years.There are sound reasons for maintaining the status quo and also good arguments for amendingthe Consitution to widen the Regular Membership.

Proposals to change the Constitution were detailed by the President in his 1981 Report andnarrowly defeated at a Special General Meeting held in February 1982.

Since that time the debate has continued and I believe that it is necessary for us to consideragain the question of extension of Regular Membership to other than PNF personnel. Therefore Iattach to this report a statement which reviews the existing membership rules and the options for

Journal of the Australian Naval Institute, Nov "85 — Page 5

change. A summary of the case for and against change to the Constitution is included togetherwith a timetable, agreed by the Council, foreshadowing a Special General Meeting in April, 1986.This meeting will consider any proposed changes to the Constitution arising from the reviewprocess.

You will note that we are actively seeking the views of members on this issue, especially ofthose who will be unable to be present at the Special General Meeting. I hope that there will be agood response-in writing please before the deadline of 15 January, 1986.

Before concluding I wish to record my appreciation for a job well done by all councillors. It isoften a thankless task and their job has been complicated by the larger than usual number ofpostings during the year. I would like to single out Commander Geoff Cutts for special recognition.A founder member and consistent supporter he has made an unequalled contribution duringrecent years as Journal Editor and to the administrative efficiency of the Institute. We wish himwell in retirement and hope that he will continue to be a regular contributor to the journal.

In addition to the special edition of the Journal, the 10th Anniversary was appropriatelyrecognized by a dinner attended by many distinguished Regular and Associate Members. Therecord of the Australian Naval Institute during its first ten years has been impressive. I amconfident that with the active support of its membership the Australian Naval Institute will continueto prosper and to make an important contribution to informed consideration of maritime affairs.

REVIEW OF MEMBERSHIP PROVISIONS

(A Statement Amplifying the President's Report: For Consideration by Members)

The ANI Constitution requires that Regular Members be members of the Permanent NavalForces of Australia. Members of the RAN Reserve, other Services and their Reserves, formermembers of these, and other persons having and professing a special interest in naval andmaritime affairs are entitled to Associate Membership. The distinction between Regular andAssociate Members is that only the former can hold office or vote at a General Meeting.

The basic objective of the Institute is to encourage and promote the advancement of knowledgerelated to the Navy and the maritime profession.

It is arguable that present and ex members of the Permanent and Reserve Naval Forces shouldbe entitled to full membership of an institute intending to promote the Navy. It might also be arguedthat others, who support the objectives of the Institute, should be entitled to full membership.

Others would argue, however, that the founders of the ANI, when drafting the Constitution,intended the membership rules to ensure currency of association with the contemporary Navy.They would argue that this decision remains valid today.

A change to the membership rules was considered at a Special General Meeting in February1982 and rejected. It is understood by the Council, however, that there may be significant concernover the matter still and it may be appropriate that it be considered again. Accordingly, the Councilwishes to seek the views of both Regular and Associate Members so that they can decide on theneed for a Special General Meeting to consider a change to the membership provisions of theConsitution.

It is assumed that no changes are favoured for the rules covering Honorary Membership. Thereare however four options for the rules covering Regular and Associate Membership. These arethat:

a. the present rules remain unchanged;b. there be only one form of membership for those persons having and professing a special

interest in naval and maritime affairs and willing to support the aims of the ANI, irrespectiveof profession or occupation;

c. Regular Membership be extended to all members of the Permanent Naval Forces, theAustralian Naval Reserve, officers and instructors of the Naval Reserve Cadets and formermembers of these forces;or

d Regular Membership be extended more widely, but short of that at either b or c above.The opinions of Regular, Associate and Honorary Members are requested in writing to the

Secretary by 15 January 1986.If your responses indicate support for change, the Council will call a Special General Meeting for

April 1986. In the event of little or no support there will be no meeting. Advice of the Council'sdecision and a summary of arguments for and against proposed changes, if any, will be includedin the February issue of the Journal.


FROM THE TREASURER

The annual audit was carried out by Paul Reis and his report and supporting statements arepublished in this journal. Once again our operating costs exceeded the income generated bysubscriptions, and the source of our overall profit was the interest earned on our accumulatedfunds. The increased subscription rate should reverse this trend and if we contain our overheads,it should be several years before another increase is required. Further on this matter, at the time ofprinting one third of members have not yet renewed subscriptions. Prompt payment of dues isessential to allow orderly operation by the Institute.

The debts written off this year include one from a bankrupt advertiser which has beenoutstanding for several years. Others include bank fees and agents' commissions. We begin thisfinancial year carrying forward only those debts outstanding from advertising in the May andAugust Journals. A major disappointment was the extremely low income generated by advertisingin the August Journal. As a result, several colour photographs had to be deleted from that edition

A bonus for the year was the income generated by Seapower 84 sales; we were able to absorbsome residual costs and still show a profit. A further bonus has been the generous donations tothe library, including cash for a specific book. The Council has endorsed a buying programme toimprove the library but perhaps some members have books on maritime matters gathering dust,which they may care to donate.

The decision to purchase our own computer carries with it a continuous ownership cost whichwill be justified by using it to reduce our administration costs, particularly when running aSeapower seminar. However, its best justification will be the provision of a service to Chaptersand members and of course administering the increasing numbers generated by your recruitingefforts.

Peter Coulson

CHAPTER NEWSNew Chapters

Chapters have been formed in Brisbane and Hobart. Convenors are as follows:• Brisbane Chapter — Commander R.D. Poulton RANR, telephone (07) 393 1199.• Hobart Chapter — Commander W.T. Gascoyne RANEM, telephone (002) 21 2336.Detailed investigation is under way to establish the feasibility of forming Chapters in Adelaide andCairns.

Melbourne Chapter Report

The Annual General Meeting was held on 26 August 1985. Office-bearers elected were:• Convenor — Mr Lloyd Saltmarsh• Treasurer — Captain John Noble• Secretary — Commander Neville Daniel (telephone (03) 857 9020)The Chapter will be meeting every quarter, with a guest speaker on an informal basis.


Paul Reis A.A.S.A. F.T.I.A.CERTIFIED PRACTISING ACCOUNTANT

Correspondence 10PO BOX 20MAWSON A C T 2607

Telephone(062) 81 1566

ROOM 2072ND FLOORMLC TOWERPHILLIP A C T

4th November, 1985

The President,The Australian Naval Institute Inc.,P. 0. Box 18,DEAKIN. A.C.T. 2600

Dear Sir,

Please find attached various OperatingAccounts and Income & Expenditure Account,and Balance Sheet of the Institute whichrelate to the twelve months ended 30th September1985.

In my opinion the attached accounts areproperly drawn up so as to give a true andfair view of the state of affairs of theInstitute.

The rules relating to the administrationof the funds of the Institute have been observed

All information required by me has beenobtained.

Yours faithfully

P. 0. REIS

Page 8 — Nov '85, Journal of the Australian Naval Institute


BALANCE SHEETSFOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING - 30 SEPTEMBER 1<?85

ACCUMULATED FUNDS 1985 1984

Balance at 1 October 22432.97 2O133.39

ADD Surplus -for year 2O50.40 2319.58

Balance at 30 September 24503.37 22452.97

Provision forReplacement Medals 2OO.OO 60O.OOLegal Fees 3OO.OO 2OO.OO

LIABILITIES

Subs in advance:1983 0.00 5550.001986 580O.OO 12O.OO1987 120.00 3O.OO1988 60.00 13.001989 40.00 15.OOSundry Creditors O.OO O.OO

31O23.37 28982.97mtammmaatmmmmaammmxvc^tx

REPRESENTED BY

ASSETS 1983 1984

Sundry Debtor* . 1711.OO 6261.OOCommonwealth Bonds 6OOO.OO 6OOO.OOCheque account 123.28 257.55De-fence Credit Union 18678.98 14465.39Stock on hand:

Insignia 1339.11 1935.4OMedals 43O.OO 42.43

Medal Die 1.OO 1.OOComputer 270O.OO O

31023.37 28982.97

Journal of the Australian Naval Institute, Nov 85 — Page 9

FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 1983

INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT

EXPENDITURE 1983 1984

Journal Operating Costs 6333.98 3983.87Postage 123.9O 1O1.9OAudit Fees 210.OO 160.OOCompany Fees 10.OO 4.OODonation to Legacy 10O.OO 10O.OOAdvertising O.OO 94.12Stationery 773.47 361.20Library Additions 41.85 83.89Bank Charges 3.85 59.37Presentation Medals 92.43 84.86Chapter Support 952.49 250.OOProvision -for Replacement

Medals 100.00 O.OOProvision for Legal Fees 100.OO 1OO.OOOffice Services 375.12 429.33Computer Service 1290.50 475.OOWrite off bad debts 333.42 103.OOAdjust stock value O.OO 281.39

10841.01 8871.93Surplus Transferred toto Accumulated Funds 203O.4O 2319.58

12891.41 11191.5;

INCOME 1985 1984

Insignia Trading 121.91 1O7.5OSeapower 84 154.40 64.43Joining Fees 235.OO 34O.OOSubscriptions 9165.00 8340.67Interest 2715.10 2338.91Medal provision transfer 30O.OO O.OO

12891.41 11191.31

Page 10 — Nov '85. Journal of the Australian Naval Institute

I-UK ! Ht 12 MONTHS ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 1 "»8?

JOURNAL OPERATING ACCOUNT

EXPENDITURE

Pr i nt i ng NovPr i nt i ng FebPr i nt i ng MayPrint! ng AugEnve 1 opesPostagePrizesEditor lalexpenses

Agent / Bankcommi (elan

1983

4066.

3923.4237.

3333.

0.732.330.

100.

O.

16943.

00000000009O

00

00

00

90

1984

4436.3830.

3830.

4304.

342.677.334.

149.

103.

18289.

00000000402768

98

40

73

INSIGNIA

Stock an hand01 Oct

PurchasesPostageProfit transferto Incbexp A/c

1935.

0.41.

121.

2118.

40

00

30

91

61

202.

2631 .33.

107.

2993.

43

3453

30

04

! INCOME

! Advert i s 1 ng :1 Nov! Feb1 May1 Aug

I Sales1 Subscr ip t i one1 (non-members)1 Net Operating! Cost Transfer! to InckExp A/c

OPERATING ACCOUNT

: Sales|

! Speaker gifts! Binders for1 library1 Stock on hand

30 Sep

1983

2790.2430.2431.1697.33.

1227.

6333.

16943.

733.

26.

0.

1339.

2118.

3720OO833002

98

9O

30

00

00

1 1

61

1984

2023.2880.2833.2783.433.1343.

3983.

18289.

887.

116.

33.

1933.

2993.

0000

0000<;e3P

B7

73

vp

25

49

40

04

MEDAL OPERATING ACCOUNT

Stock on handOl Oct

Purchase*

42.

300.

342.

43

00

43

127.

0.

127.

29

OO

29

SEAPOWER

Expend 1 ture

1983 AdvanceProceed ingmD i «tr lout IonReport

Speakers' giftsHon memb*r»htps

Prof 1 t transfer

to I ncl<Exp A/c

0.137.O.0.

183.0.

134.

473.

OO

30

OO

OO

60

00

4O

5O

10OO.

6388.186.47.116.193.

134.

8197.

00

034300

2500

4O

16

1 Presentations1 Stock on hand

30 Sep

LINK ACCOUNT

Income

Advance/ repay

Advert i B 1 ngSales/P1 d i ngaI n»i gn i aS*m 1 nar

(Surp lus

transferred )

92.

430.

342.

0.0.

473.0.

0.

473.

43

OO

43

OO

0030OO

00

30

84.

42.

127.

1000.6763.92.116.223.

8197.

86

43

29

oo0000

2?9 1

16

Journal of the Australian Naval Institute. Nov '85 — Page 11

Royal Swedish Navy has taken delivery of Hugin-class patrol boatno. 14 in a series of 16.Length: 36.4 m. Displacement: 150 tons. Speed: 30+ knots.Complement: 18.

SCANFIRE• Bofors all purpose gun 57 mm/ L 70.• Kongsberg SSM Penguin Mk 2.• Philips combat & weapon control

system 9LV 200

This powerful weapon package is proposed for the RAN. Freemantleclass FPB

PHILIPS LLEKTRONIKINDUSTRIER ABDefence Electronics. S-17588 Jarfalla, SwedenTel. Int. +4675810000. Telex 11505 philja s

PHILIPS


WARSHIPS FOR THE ROYALAUSTRALIAN NAVY 1945-85

by Rear Admiral William J Rourke AO MEc CEng FRINA FIEAusl RAN

SummaryThis is an account of the acquisition of

warships for the Royal Australian Navy in theforty years since World War II. It describes themain overseas and Australian programmes ofthe period, with particular emphasis on thechoices made between offshore purchase orlocal construction. Current capability for designand construction of warships is described, andprospects for the next decade are assessed.Many people have helped prepare this paper. Iwould particularly like to thank Mr J Mortimer,Mr F Shadbolt, Director of Naval ShipProduction, and Mr B Robson, Director of ShipDesign, for their substantial assistance. I havealso drawn on a paper by Rear Admiral M P Reidentitled 'Fifty Years of Naval Engineering 1925-1975'. The paper is presented by permission ofthe Chief of Naval Staff, Vice Admiral D WLeach, AC, CBE, LVO, RAN. The viewsexpressed are not necessarily those of the RoyalAustralian Navy or the Department of Defence,but are the responsibility of the author.Introduction

Australian governments since Federationhave lent some measure of support to navalshipbuilding as a necessary part of defenceindustrial capacity. However, the shipbuildingcapacity built up in times of need has lapsed inperiods of low demand. In the last decade, thiscapacity has been built up again and it is now tobe determined whether or not it can besuccessfully maintained, or will lapse again intoanother period of disuse. Much will depend uponthe standards of execution of currentprogrammes.

The Australian Commonwealth Naval Boardwas established in 1905, and in 1908 theAustralian Government passed the CoastDefence Appropriation Act for the acquisition,among other things, of two torpedo boatdestroyers. In March 1909, the Minister forDefence authorised the purchase of three TBdestroyers, and after the Imperial Conferencethis was extended to a larger programme. Abattle cruiser, two cruisers, two destroyers andtwo submarines were built in Britain, a thirddestroyer Warrego was built in Britain andknocked down for reassembly at CockatooIsland dockyard. Three more destroyers Huon,

Torrens and Swan and the cruiser Brisbane, withthe greater part of their engines, were built atCockatoo between 1913 and 1916.

A further cruiser, Adelaide, was commencedat Cockatoo during the war and completed in the1920s. At the end of World War I, in 1919, thedestroyer leader Anzac and five S classdestroyers, six J class submarines and threesloops were transferred to the RAN. A furthersloop was transferred in 1925.

In the early twenties, it was decided two morecruisers were needed, and there was extensivedebate on the merits of local construction. Aslocal construction costs were assessed at about50% above British costs, it was decided to spendthe funds available on two British built cruisers,Australia and Canberra, and a Cockatoo-builtseaplane carrier Albatross. Two submarines,Ox/ey and Otway, were approved for acquisitionin 1924. During the thirties, a policy of someimports and some local building continued. FourV and W class destroyers, the destroyer leaderStuart and the light cruisers Sydney, Hobart andPerth were acquired from the United Kingdom,and the sloops Yarra and Swan were built atCockatoo.

The AuthorRear Admiral Bill Rourke joined the Royal

Australian Navy as a cadet midshipman in January1942. After brief service at Flinders Naval Depot andin HM Ships QUEEN ELIZABETH and HOWE, hejoined the Royal Naval Engineering College inPlymouth in 1946. On return to Australia, he joinedHMAS SYDNEY, and served in that ship in theKorean War, being mentioned in despatches. Hehas had post graduate engineering training innuclear engineering and was involved as a projectengineer with Yarrow-Admira l ty ResearchDepartment in Glasgow. He has been closelyassociated with ship construction through his careerand spent some years in the United States as projectofficer tor the guided missile destroyers PERTH,HOBART and BRISBANE. He served as MilitaryAdviser to the Chief Defence Scientist from 1969 to1971 and later, after a year at the Royal College ofDefence Studies, was posted as Defence Scientificand Technical Representative, London. He returnedto Australia in 1976 and was promoted Commodoreto take up the post of General Manager, GardenIsland Dockyard. In March 1979 he was promotedRear Admiral and appointed Chief of Naval Material,in which position he served until his retirement in1985.

Journal ol the Australian Naval Institute. Nov 85 — Page 13

At the outset of WWII, two more shipsParramatta and Warrego had been laid down atCockatoo and orders were placed for twodestroyers Arunta and Warramunga, with a third,Bataan, ordered in 1942. In 1938, the Naval Staffhad decided to proceed with the design of acorvette for anti-submarine and minesweepingduties for use in the approaches to our ports. Atotal of 60 Bathurst class corvettes were built inAustralia during the war, 36 for the RAN, 20 forthe Admiralty and four for the Royal Indian Navy.Twelve River class frigates were built, two ofthem at Williamstown, taken over by theCommonwealth in 1942 and remaining a navalshipbuilding yard since. Four boom defencevessels Kookaburra, Koala, Kangaroo andKarangi, were built at Cockatoo.

During the war, the cruiser Shropshire wastransferred to replace Canberra, lost in action,and two Q class and five N class destroyers ofthe Royal Navy were Australian manned. Afterthe war, five Q class destroyers were transferredto the RAN.

Early Post War 1945-60In January 1944, the Australian War Cabinet

appointed a committee to review the Australianshipping and shipbuilding industries and torecommend plans for their peacetimedevelopment. In August 1945, the PrimeMinister, Mr Chifley, announced governmentdecisions that 'the maintenance of a peacetimemerchant shipbuilding industry is essential fordefence purposes' and 'a planned navalp roduc t ion p rogramme, an essent ia laccompaniment to a planned merchantprogramme will be entered upon . . . to ensurestability to the industry as a whole'1

In January 1946, Mr Chifley expressed theGovernment's concern at the high cost ofAustralian shipbuilding, about double the costper ton of work on the Clyde.* Nevertheless, on26 March 1946, the Prime Minister announcedthat the Government had approved in principlethe building of four additional destroyers (twoeach at Cockatoo Island NSW and atWilliamstown, Victoria), when the two destroyersof British design then being built (Tobruk andAnzac) had sufficiently progressed, so as toavoid the dispersal of the skilled staff and otherpersonnel. Funds were made available to enablenew methods of pre-fabricated weldingconstruction to be undertaken.3

At the beginning of World War II, most materialand equipment for ships was imported fromBritain, but by 1946 about seventy per cent wasbeing made in Australia.4 It was decided that thisdevelopment should be continued and extendedin the new destroyer programme for the Daring

class. These were the first British post wardestroyer design, modified slightly for Australianservice. They were the first all-welded navalvessels built in Australia. The hull was largelybuilt of 'DW' quality steel requiring preheating to100°C. Aluminium alloy plate was usedextensively in the superstructure, connected tothe steel hull using aluminium alloy rivets with abarium chromate paste between the matingsurfaces. Significant maintenance problemswere experienced. Steam conditions were 650psi 850°F, in line with USN practice, and theywere AC ships operating at 440 volts 60 cycles.Boilers, turbines (including rotor forgings),gearing, and major items of auxiliary machinerywere all built in Australia. Although the number ofships built was later reduced from four to three,as an economy measure, the Daringconstruction programme of Voyager, Vendettaand Vampire was a successful one, with newengineering capabilities established.

In 1946, discussions had been initiated withthe Admiralty on the formation of a Fleet Air Arm,and it was agreed that two Majestic class carrierslaid down during the war would be completedand transferred to the RAN. The decision wasannounced in Parliament on 3 June 1947 andSydney commissioned in Devonport inDecember 1948. The British carrier Vengeancewas lent to the RAN from 1952 until 1955.Melbourne commissioned in Barrow in October1955 and incorporated such innovations as thesteam catapult, mirror landing sight and angleddeck. A substantial modernisation was carriedout by Garden Island Dockyard in 1968.

While the Darings were building in the earlyf i f t ies , Arunta and Warramunga weremodernised, and four British built 'Q' classdestroyers were converted to Type 15 ASfrigates between 1950 and 1957. This involved aconsiderable redesign effort, with extensive useof aluminium superstructure to reduce topweight.This was our first substantial experience ofaluminium steel interface problems.

In August 1950, just after the Darings hadbeen laid down, the government announced thatsix new anti-submarine frigates of the River classwould be built, three at Cockatoo and three atWi l l iamstown. The programme wassubsequently cut back to four ships with the finaltwo not authorised again until the early sixties.The design of the Australian River class wassimilar to that of the British Type 12 Whitby class.Propulsion plant employed steam plant withdouble reduction geared turbines. Seacat anti-aircraft guided missiles were installed and Stuartreceived the first installation of the Australiandesigned and developed Ikara anti-submarinemissile in 1963. For the first four ships, boilers,


76 Destroyer HMAS Yarra Photo courtesy J. Mortimer

turbines and auxiliary machinery were all locallymade. The 4.5 turrets were manufactured inBendigo.

It will be recalled that the announcement of sixfrigates in August 1950, making ten destroyerson order in Australia at the one time, came soonafter the outset of the Korean War in which somany ships and men of the RAN served withdistinction. The order book was cut back to threeDarings and four Rivers in 1954. The boomdefence vessel Kimbla was built by Walkers.

1960-75During the late sixties, the hydrographic ship

Moresby was built at the State Dockyard,Newcastle. This was the first post-war navalvessel designed in Australia.

There was increasing military activity in SouthEast Asia. The three Daring class were incommission and the four Rivers nearingcompletion. Further orders were necessary, andit was decided in January 1962 to order twoAdams class guided missile destroyers from theUnited States. Despite strong criticism by theLabor Opposition, the Menzies Governmentwent ahead, arguing that the construction ofthese vessels was beyond the skills and

experience of Australian shipyards. Theshipbuilders did not agree.5 The government'sdecision led to a contract in January 1962 withthe Defoe Shipbuilding Company, Michigan, forthe ships Perth and Hotoa/t, with an order for athird ship Brisbane placed in January 1963; thefirst two ships commissioned in 1965, andBrisbane in 1967.

The Australian DDGs followed the USN -Gibbs and Cox design except for modificiation ofaccommodation and the installation of the Ikaramissile system. The earlier USN ships were builtof HY80 steel, although the hull design wasbased on HT steel, and the RAN ships were builtof this material. They introduced a new era ofweapons, weapons control, and propulsiontechnology to the RAN with the Tartar missilesystem, 3D electronic scanner radars and 1250psi 850°F steam propulsion systems. It wasclearly more economical to order ships from theUSA — Defoe had already built four of the class— and most of the equipment would have had tohave been imported. However, it is difficult inretrospect to support the view that constructionin Australia would have been beyond thecapability of local shipbuilders.

In 1961, six Ton class minesweepers were

Journal of the Australian Naval Institute, Nov '85 — Page 15

purchased from the UK; two of them were laterconverted to minehunters by Garden IslandDockyard. In 1962, it was decided to re-establisha submarine arm of the RAN, and in January1963 it was announced that four British Oberonclass were to be built in Scotland at a cost ofC5.000,000 each. Ox/ey commissioned in March1967 and the fourth boat in December 1969. Twomore Oberons, Orion and Otama were orderedin 1971 and delivered in 1977 and 1978.

Meanwhile in Australia, two more River classfrigates were ordered, one each at Cockatoo andWilliamstown. Although the basic design of thesefrigates, Swan and Torrens, was based on theType 12 hull, the reconfigured frigates weredesigned by the Naval Design Branch of theDepartment of Navy. During this time, the Navydesigned destroyer tender Stalwart was orderedfrom Cockatoo. Towards the end of the sixties,20 Attack class patrol boats were ordered. Thisclass of patrol boat was also designed by Navy.The hulls of the patrol boats were made byCommonwealth Engineering and assembled atthe shipbuilders Evans Deakin and Walkers. Inthe words of Dr Hughes, the then GeneralManager of Walkers:

'In this contract we have the interestingspectacle of sophisticated little vessels beingbuilt at prices competitive with those tenderedby many overseas builders, without the benefitof any shipbuilding subsidy . . . You might wellask why it is possible to compete directly? . . .The lessons are clear: the boats have beenordered in sufficient number to warrant theapplication of fullscale methods of batchproduction, including the extensive use of jigs,the degree of detailed planning which bringsits rewards, the advantage of buying in bulkand the opportunity for tradesmen to performthe same type of work on a succession ofsimilar ships.'6

Much the same would apply to the NQEA buildof Fremantle class some fifteen years later

The design of the 15,500 ton destroyer tenderSfa/wart provided the naval design branch withthe opportunity to carry out a complete design.There was a more substantial task in the designof the modified Rivers, Swan and Torrens. Majorchanges were involved, including the integrationof the Dutch M22 fire control into the combatsystem. The Daring class destroyer Duchesswas lent to the RAN, and later transferred,following the loss in collision of the destroyerVoyager.

In the late sixties, as Swan and Torrensneared completion, the Department of Defencefocused its attention on the future of navalshipbuilding. In 1969, an interdepartmental

committee was established to examine theneeds for naval dockyard development. Thecapability of Australian shipbuilding yards, bothprivate and government operated, wasexamined, and consideration was given to thedesirability of carrying out naval shipbuilding inprivate yards. Although support was lent to thebenefits of building in private yards, particularlyfor non-combatant and minor-combatant ships, itwas broadly concluded that destroyerconstruction was only likely to sustain onebuilding yard, and that the skills, experience andinvestment needed, favoured Williamstown forthis purpose, with Cockatoo providing reservecapacity.

At about the same time, after experience of theconfrontation campaign in the establishment ofMalaysia, a requirement was developed for anew class of light destroyers. In 1967, there werediscussions with the Royal Navy on jointdevelopment, but it was not practicable toestablish a common requirement. In 1969,assessment of increasing air threat led to arevision of the requirement and it was decided toproceed to develop a local design. Somesupplementation of local design capacity wasnecessary and YARD Australia were awarded apreliminary design contract in early 1970.'

The overall design task, and particularly that ofweapons system integration, was a formidableone, and as design concepts were developed,there was increasing support for adopting thecombat system used in the latest USN frigateknown as the Patrol Frigate or Perry class FFG.The Government announced its intention toorder three Australian designed DDLs in thecontext of the August 1972 budget, but theelection led to a change in government. Theincoming Minister for Defence, Lance Barnard,ordered a comprehensive review of the projectthat led to a decision in August 1973 not topursue the indigenous DDL design, and in April1974 to acquire two FFGs. This decisionreflected a realisation that the costs and R&Drisks of a specific design were too high, and thatit was in Australia's interest to share theoverheads of a new class, preferably a largeone. Our design processes had not run smoothlyand our design review cast some doubt on thevalidity of the work completed. In the event, wejoined the USN in the largest frigate programmesince World War II. The FFG class provided amissile system and combat system that met ourneeds, was close to our overall requirement, andhad a simple system of gas turbine propulsion ofunequalled efficiency. The order for Adelaideand Canberra was followed by add-on orders forSydney in October 1977, and Darwin in April1980. The Darwin design was significantlymodified by the USN to improve helicopteroperating and handling arrangements.

Page 16 — Nov 85. Journal ol the Australian Naval Institute

Although the decision to purchase FFGs wassoundly based it created two major problems.One was that the destroyer building yard atWilliamstown was left without orders. The otherwas that an initial attempt to establish a designagency support base had foundered. Bothconsequences had long term effects. In regard toemployment at naval yards, the Governmentdecided that the modernisation of DDGs that theNavy had planned should take place in theUnited States, should be carried out in Australia.This was a major task for Garden Island which,despite initial misgivings, was successfullyaccomplished. Williamstown was given the taskof River class modernisation but nevertheless,problems with imbalance of trades, and policiesof no retrenchment, led to non-productiveemployment in the form of 'idle time'. Thetermination of the attempt to design a DDL withinAustralia signified a general conclusion that sucha task would not normally be appropriate, at leastwhen similar capability ships were beingdesigned with heavy investment, by our allies.

In the early seventies, Walkers built sixLanding Craft Heavy (LCH) for the RAN and twofor the PNG Navy,

The Past Decade 1975-85In the last 10 years, the programmes of

purchase of submarines from the UK and

frigates from the US, have been continued andextended, but at the same time there has been arenewed emphasis on the merits of localconstruction. The survey ship Flinders wasdesigned by the Australian Shipbuilding Boardand built at Williamstown in the early seventies.In 1974, an order was placed on Williamstownfor the oceanographic ship Cook to a designproduced by the Naval Design Branch. The orderwas placed in haste, to fill the void of thecancellation of the DDL programme, andsuffered many difficulties, but the ship wassatisfactorily commissioned in 1980, and isproving effective in its oceanographic role. InNovember 1977, an order was placed for anamphibious landing ship Tobruk, constructed atCarringtons Slipway in Tomago. This was a localadaptation of an earlier British design and thesubstitution of local materials and equipmentsled to some difficulties in control of weight, and insetting to work. After a number of modificiationsto arrangements, the ship is now running well.

For some time, Navy had planned to replacethe ageing British built underway replenishmentship Supply with a ship that would replenish allthe needs of an escort -- fuel, stores andmunitions — at the one time. A design for thisvessel was produced by the Naval DesignBranch but was eventually shelved on grounds

Sloop HMAS Swan Photo courtesy S. Given


of expense. Overseas designs were thenevaluated, and a French design selected with theinitial expectation that the ship would be orderedin that country. However, the governmentdecided in March 1978 that the constructionshould be open to Australian bids, and Cockatoowere awarded the contract in October 1979. Thespecification and the construction tasks provedsignificantly more complex than the contractor orthe Commonwealth had expected, and it provednecessary to renegotiate the contract price anddelivery schedule. A great deal of difficulty wasexperienced by the builder in the re-establishment of shipbuilding skills not usedsince the completion of Torrens in 1971. Thesedifficulties were gradually overcome, and the17,800 tonne ship Success is expected todeliver in early 1986 to the currently contractedtime and cost.

It became clear during the seventies thatHMAS Melbourne was reaching the end of hereconomic life, and if the capability she providedwas to be maintained, another aircraft carrierwas needed. An aircraft carrier, together with itsfixed wing, represented a substantial investment,and the need for a carrier was analysed anddiscussed at length over a period of severalyears. In 1980, the government decided that anaircraft carrier should be acquired to provide acapability for operating ASW helicopters, and tohave potential for operating STOVL aircraft.

Various overseas designs were investigated,including, particularly, those of the Invincibleclass building for the Royal Navy; the Garibaldiclass building for the Italian Navy; the SeaControl Ship to Gibbs and Cox design buildingfor the Spanish Navy; and a Littons design basedon the US Navy LPH. Attention had narrowed tothe two latter alternatives when the UKgovernment indicated Invincible was availablefor sale, and further investigations led toacceptance of that offer. In the event, theFalklands war led to a withdrawal of the UK offer,and a change of government in Australia in early1983 was followed by a decision not to proceedwith an aircraft carrier acquisition.

A requirement was established in the lateseventies for a new class of patrol boat, and afterinternational competition it was decided the leadboat should be built by Brooke Marine to theirdesign, with fourteen follow boats to be built byNorth Queensland Engineers and Agents ofCairns. After some initial difficulties associatedwith overweight of the lead boat, the programmehas been an outstanding success, with boatsdelivered ahead of schedule, within budget, andto a very high standard. Dr Hughes' prescriptionfor a successful programme has been confirmedagain.

A major Naval Design Branch effort has beenthe development of a unique concept for minecountermeasures, involving the design of aglass-reinforced plastic catamaran hull, carryingan advanced digital-processor-based combatsystem for mine detection, identification, anddestruction. A unique solution has beenproduced to meet a most demandingrequirement. A contract has been awarded toRamsay/Fibreglass of Tomago, NSW, who havetwo prototype ships under construction in aspecial grp facility. New facilities have beenestablished for evaluating the magnetic, shockand noise characteristics of the ships andsystems. The new vessels are planned toundergo their operational evaluation in 1986-87.Progress to date has given encouragingconfirmation of the feasibility of the concept, andthe merits of the solution. There are goodexpectations that successful prototype trials willbe followed by a production run of at least fourmore vessels for the RAN in 1986. There aregood prospects of export orders.

The largest of several current navalconstruction programmes is that to build twomore of the FFG-7 class, at Williamstown NavalDockyard. The ships are to the same designconfiguration as Darwin, except they will havethe Australian designed and built Mulloka sonar,this programme increases the numbers of theFFG class in the RAN and enhances theadvantages of class maintenance and support,including particularly the successful system of arotatable pool of refurbished equipments. It alsoprovides Williamstown with an establisheddesign, well developed for production, thatshould provide a good vehicle for the re-establishment of naval ship building skills. Giventhe need to maintain capacity at Williamstown, itwas agreed that construction there should costthe Commonwealth no more than would furtherorders of Todd in the United States. Variations inexchange rates that have occurred since thatdecision have brought us to the currentassessment that there is no significant premiumfor the local build, and clear advantages tobuilding in Australia.

Since Swan commissioned in January 1970,and Flinders in April 1973, Williamstown'sprincipal tasks have been the construction of theoceanographic ship Cook, and themodernisation of the River class frigates.Difficulties encountered in each of these taskswere attributed in part to an inadequatepreparation for the definition of the task. In thecase of the new frigates, a great deal of efforthas been applied to establishing a clear contractbetween the General Manager of the Dockyardand the Australian Frigate Project Director.Contract amendments will be made only with the


Bathurst Class 'sweeper HMAS Deloraine Photo courtesy S. Given

agreement of both parties and will includevariations in time and cost. It should be notedthat Williamstown have let a support contract toTodd that should help with the transfer ofproduction technology and production planning,and allow the Australian yard to reap much of thelearning benefit obtainable from the fifty andmore ships of the class already built. Approval tocut steel was given recently and the two ships onorder should be commissioned in 1991 and1993.

The other naval dockyard, at Garden Island inSydney, has the refit of the Fleet as its primarymission, but has undertaken substantialmodernisations, particularly of the DDGs. Thelargest modernisation to date is to commencelater this year at a total cost of about $250 millionin current dollar terms. It will include upgrading ofcommunications, gun and missile fire controlsystems, and the ship's central command andcontrol system and will allow the ships to attain atotal useful service life of thirty-five years. Othermodernisation work of note is the recentlycompleted programme at Cockatoo to installupdated sensors and combat systems in theOberon submarines. This Australian manageddesign development has brought the Oberons tothe forefront of diesel powered submarinecapability, able to exploit to the full the capabilityof such modern weapons as the MK 48 torpedoand the submarine launched Harpoon missile.

Australian Design and ConstructionCapabilities

Australia's defence and contribution toregional stability will continue to require themaintenance of a modern, capable and effectivefleet. This in turn requires the ability to assess,select, acquire and bring into service, andmodernise as necessary, ships incorporatingadvanced technology, close to the limits of ournational engineering capability. Our ability toperform this task well, is interdependent with thescope of our endeavours. Although it would notbe economical to design ourselves all the shipswe need, we cannot afford not to be deeplyinvolved in design. Although it would not beeconomical to build ourselves all the ships weneed, we cannot afford not to be deeply involvedin shipbuilding. We must, of course, be involvedin modernisation as well as in repair. Each one ofthese activities reinforces our competence in theother. In each, we must try to avoid theexcessive costs of discontinuity.

Our insularity, and our modest and fluctuatinglevels of activity, pose particular problems for themaintenance of design capability andcompetence, and yet such capability andcompetence is a necessary foundation for ouracquisition management, construction,modernisation and repair skills. The wide rangeof our equipment introduces further problems of

Journal of Ihe Australian Naval Institute. Nov '85 — Page 19

spreading the available expertise. I believe itnecessary that we foster development of ourdesign capability amongst our naval engineers,our civilian engineers and scientists in theDepartment of Defence, and in industry. Ourengineers in the Naval Design Branch need to beemployed principally in assessment and designmanagement, but to allow them to discharge thatresponsibility effectively, they must participate indesign activities, particularly in industry. Wemust enlarge the opportunities for this byincreasing our complementary activities withindustry here and abroad.

Designers need to be associated withproduct ion, and we need to developarrangements where not only our youngerengineers, but those at higher levels ofresponsibility, can increase their experience andinteraction with shipbuilders here and overseas.We need to enlarge the level and competence ofdesign support to industry. We need to assume,as a public duty, the task of developing andenlarging the self-sufficiency of industry; andneed to encourage industry to take on tasks theyhave not taken on before. This needs to be agradual and sustained process if the costs oflearning are to be kept within reasonablebounds. Such an approach should sit well with aphilosophy of giving the shipbuilder a broaderspecification than has been common in the past,and encouraging him to develop a detaileddesign that is production oriented.

We have a whole new field of increasingimportance in the design, development andmaintenance of system software. Again, it is anarea where the partnership of naval analyst andcivil analyst is essential. Again, it is a field wherewe need to develop further an industry supportcapability. Australia has already made largeadvances in this area and has achieved highstandards of combat system support for surfacewarships and for submarines.

Industry Assistance

Naval shipbui ld ing capabi l i t ies areinterdependent with the capabilities of theshipbuilding and repair industry as a whole,which in turn are interdependent with our overallindustrial capabilities. These capabilities areinfluenced by government policies of industryassistance. Although a comprehensive accountof policy changes and their effects is outside thescope of this paper, some brief referencesshould be made to the emphasis accorded tonaval shipbuilding.

In 1959, the Tariff Board Report on theShipbuilding Industry said:

'For reasons of broad national interest it is thepolicy of the Government to maintain anefficient shipbuilding industry in Australia . . .The board understands that the principalconsideration underlying the Government'spolicy is the defence significance of theindustry in that its operation in peace timewould provide a nucleus of ski l ledtechnologists and tradesmen.'

The 1971 Tariff Board Report stated:The primary defence requirements is forfacilities for dockings and repair and forbuilding small vessels such as minesweepers,patrol vessels and landing barges. Capacityfor the production of larger ships is regardedas a secondary requirement likely to be ofimportance only in the event of an extendedconflict.'In 1976, defence considerations were reported

as substantially the same.'Naval dockyards undertake routine refits,repairs and modernisations and possess thenecessary skills to construct warships.Commercial yards are used mainly for repairrefits and docking and for constructing smallervessels such as patrol boats. Given majorcontingencies, greater demand for theseservices would be placed in commercial yards,as well as for the replacement of various cargocarriers. Such conditions would havesignificant warning time, and the ability toproduce items such as engines, electronicequipment and weapons systems would be asimportant as hull construction.'In 1979, Defence advised the IAC that the

shipbuilding industry 'would be likely to requireexpansion in a defence emergency andtherefore the maintenance in the industry of thecurrent range of skills and technologies and theircontinued upgrading would be in the defenceinterest1.8 The Commission did not take accountof the defence implications in examining thequestion of assistance for the industry,considering that 'if assistance justified oneconomic grounds is insufficient to maintain theindustry, the question of further assistance onnational security grounds is a matter forDefence'.9

Reductions in industry assistance and thelifting of restrictions in imports have led to thecessation of local construction of largecommercial vessels. The assistance provided forconstruction of smaller vessels, including theextension of assistance to vessels for export, is asignificant factor and may help Australianbuilders establish themselves as suppliers to theregion. Although this subsidy will fall to 22.5% in85/86, and to 20% the following year, it shouldserve a valuable purpose at this level.


. • • '

Battle Class Destroyer HMAS Anzac Photo courtesy P. Han

A Look to the FutureThe fourth guided missile frigate building for

the RAN is currently receiving post shakedownmodifications before arrival in Australia. Whenthey are complete, all current RAN shipbuildingand modification orders will be with Australianshipyards.

What of future orders? An order for patrolboats for South Pacific nations is to be placedshortly and within a few years we will need tostart work on the design of the Fremantlereplacements. Project Definition Studies forsubmarines will begin this year, with associatedstudies of the appropriate level of Australianparticipation. If all goes well, a constructioncontract should be placed in 1987, and it seemslikely that most or all of the submarines in theprogramme wi l l be local ly bui l t . TheGovernment's decision will be based upon theassessed performance of Australian builders,and that in turn will be based on the realisedperformance of the last few years, and of theimmediate future.

During the nineties, there will be a need notonly to replace the Oberons, but the Rivers aswell, and the surface combatant to follow theAustralian Frigate programme needs to beselected within the next one or two years. Thereseems to be no reason why these ships shouldnot be built in Australia, and it is to be hoped thatthe capability currently being restored will bemaintained and developed in the years to come.It is to be hoped that capability will be built up notonly at the shipyard, but in the many supportingindustrial activities.

We have some difficulties in that the number ofyards looking for naval and commercial workseems to be greater than the forecast work loadthat could sustain them. If we are to have theneeded continuity of employment, it seemsinevitable that we must see some reduction inthe number of yards. Although Williamstown hasmade great advances in its industrial relationsand in its organisation in order to re-establish itsshipbuilding capacity, I do not believegovernment yards are best suited to ship


building tasks. Shipbuilding often needs anentrepreneurial approach that does not sit wellwith departmental procedures. Perhapsopportunities may arise in the years to come, toprivatise the naval building activity, and for two orthree of the competing builders to become therecognised naval building yards. It will benecessary, however, that they remain costcompetitive both in Australia and overseas, so asto earn a right to a continuing work load. Weshould look to strengthening their capacity fordesign so that they can produce their ownproduction drawings, and we should consider thecontinued utilisation of their expertise as thetechnical authority for the lifetime support of theclass.

We have a further difficulty in timely selectionof a design. The success of local shipbuildingprogrammes is dependent to a considerableextent on the standard of preparation for thetask. It takes a good deal of time to establishlocal sources for material and equipment. Ittakes a good deal of time to plan the productionprocesses and to ensure the necessary sourceswill be available. All too often, we withholdendorsement of a requirement, and of a designto satisfy it, until too late, so that these processesare unduly rushed, and we are forced bypressures of time into less than optimalsolutions. We should aim for early attainment ofthe position that we have a design completed,and a prototype being built. We can then affordto take a flexible approach to the timing of theproduction vessels.

ConclusionIt adds significantly to our capability to support

our defence force if the warships we need can bebuilt in Australia with reasonable economy.Start-up costs will often be such that single shipsmight not provide an economical programme,but our industry has shown that we can order anumber of similar ships, they can be built here tostandards of quality and cost that are competitivewith imports. We have also seen that there aremany difficulties in regaining a capability lost withlack of exercise. It is in our interest to plan ourwarship acquisition so that our building andsupport capability is further developed andmaintained. If we do these things, we will havean efficient shipbuilding industry, and will have asignificant contribution to the defence andsecurity of this country.

Notes

1. Commonwealth of Australia. Digest of Decisions andAnnouncements. No. 106, 12 Aug. 45 to 31 Aug. 45. p 59.

2 DODA No. 108, p 45.3 DODA No. 112, p 32.4 Hutcheson G.I.D. Naval Engineering in Australia' Papers

on Engineering Subjects. Admiralty 1946.5. See Parker, RG Cockatoo Island, p 59.6. Hughes W.L. The Shipbuilding Industry. 1968.7. Yarrow Admiralty Research Department had been

established by the Royal Navy in 1949 to act as designagent, particularly in the propulsion field. YARD Australiawas established with a more comprehensive role and wassupplemented by temporary attachment of Royal Navydesign staff

8. IAC Report Ships. Boats and Other Vessels Not Exceeding6000 Tons Cross Register, 25 July, 1979 p 47

9. ibid p 47.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barnard LH, 'Destroyer Procurement and Naval Policy'.Australian Quarterly, Vol 44, No 2, June 72.

Bennett GA, The Future of Naval Shipbuilding'. TRIAD. No 2,Department of Defence, 1977

Calder RR. 'Naval Vessel Construction in Australia'. Journal olthe ANI, Vol 8, No 1, Feb 82

Clarke ES, Australian Shipping Industry Study MissionShipbuilding Productivity and Industrial Relations inAustraliaAustralian Symposium in Ship Technology. SeaTransport Technology 1981 Sydney, the Institute,1981.

Doyle AB, Naval Engineering in Australia Since 1913. SydneyUniversity Engineering Club Annual War MemorialLecture 1947.

Firkins, Peter, Of Nautilus and Eagles. History of the RoyalAustralian Navy. Updated Edition, 1983.

Gillett, Ross, Warships of Australia, 1977.Australia's Armed Forces, 1981.

Hawke RJL, 'Defence and Industry'. Seapower 81. ANI. 1981.Hughes, WL, The Shipbuilding Industy. Frank Perry Memorial

Lecture, 1968 — AMIALeach DW, & Berlyn N, New Destroyers Their Place in the

Fleet'. Navy Quarterly, Vol 4. No 3, Autumn 1976Odgers, George. The Royal Australian Navy: An Illustrated

History. Child & Henry, Hornsby, 1982.Parker RG, Cockatoo Island. Nelson, 1977.RAN, Towards the 21st Century: The RAN Looks Ahead. Text

of Briefings given by the Minister for the Navy and theNaval Staff on the DDL Project on 16 and 17 August1972

Reed. MP, Fifty Years of Naval Engineering in the RAN1925-1975 A Brief Review. Institution of Engineers(Canberra Division) 1982

Robson BC. Design Aspects and Performance of the RANOceanographic Ship, HMAS COOK. MarineTechnology 1984. UNSW Sydney.

Rourke WJ, Naval Shipbuilding in the USA. RINA AustralianBranch may 1965Maintenance of the Australian Fleet 1913-78. I.E.Aust. Annual Conference 1979.Ships, Shipbuilding and National Defence AustralianSymposium on Ship Technology UNSW, Nov 1981

Thomas KHW, Trends in Warship Design RINA AustralianBranch Paper, July 1971.Marine Application of Nuclear Power RINA AustralianBranch 1963.

Wilson ACW, Engineering in the Royal Australian Navy'Journal of Naval Engineering. Vol 12, Nos 2 and 3,1960

Woolner. Derek, The Purchase of the American FFG-7 Frigatein the Context of Furture Equipment Policy for theRAN: Journal of ANI. Vol 3, No 3, Aug 77.


JANES FIGHTING SHIPSA HISTORY

by Graeme Andrews, Australian Editor JFS

Tucked away in sundry naval bridges of majornaval vessels and many of the warships of bothsides of the Iron Curtain are copies of JanesFighting Ships. The US Navy and the Royal Navyplace large orders for each copy — and so doesthe Soviet Union!

Each issue of Janes is eagerly awaited by bothsides and both sides will use it to provide politicalammunition. Pravda has often quoted Janes toemphasise its case that the West are war-mongers while sundry Parliamentary Committeesworld-wide use the latest Janes to show that theyare falling behind in Naval parity. The editorials ofthe world's major naval annual have long beenfamous for clarity of thought, accuracy and as asource of free editorial for the leader writers ofmajor newspapers.

No naval annual is better-known yet no navalannual suffers more from an identity crisis. It isregularly referred to in secondary quotes as'James Fighting Ships', while I have hadadvertising mail addressed to me as 'Miss/MrsJane. . .Australian editress Janes FightingShips'. This caused my own personal identitycrisis, particularly with my wife of 22 years!

Janes Fighting Ships as most will know, is avery expensive, glossy annual which nowcomprises more than 800 pages, nearly 4000photographs, many line drawings and anadvertising list which illustrates much of the stateof the art of naval warfare.

The book is published in early August eachyear and compilation commences in January,when Australia, Argentina and Albania areassembled and sent to galleys. BecauseAustralia is where it is, it is often difficult for theAustralian entry to be as up-to-date as is (say)Venezuela. For many years the Australian entrywas provided entirely by the Department ofDefence and it invariably came in past the book'stight deadline. This is my tenth year assemblingthe RAN (and Army) section and in this time theAustralian section has increased in size by about25 per cent — and has been on time.

To provide the RAN section I provide DOD PRwith a photostat of the latest entry. This is usuallydone within three days of the new (unpublished)book arriving. With the 'staf I send a list ofquestions and requests for comment based upona careful reading of the public press and sundrydefence journals during the year. I usually requestaction by the end of September or early Octoberbut over the last three or four years the degree of

assistance from Canberra has faded noticeablywhen compared with the late 1970s and early1980s.

To partly offset this difficulty Janes can callupon a number of Australian naval enthusiastswho combine, in their individual ways, to providethe RAN with a quality of entry that compares wellwith any other nation. Mr John Mortimer ofCanberra has been providing fine navalphotographs for more than a decade whileLieutenant James Goldrick RAN, has providedexcellent line drawings for some years. I make itmy business to establish contact with manynaval-oriented people and I have been able toprovide many naval photos of RAN and othernavies. These are always credited to the personwho took them.

To a naval (and ex naval) man with just on 30years of service in uniform, in reserve and in navalinterest, the current decline of the RAN is a matterof sadness. Part of this decline must be attributedto the late start that the RAN made in theAustralian 'Hearts and Minds' programme whichwas won so convincingly by the RAAF with itsbig-budget F-18 purchase. Aeroplanes can flyover many cities while few citizens can see anaval ship and fewer still experience the vastnessof the sea, except from the confines of the bar of acruise ship.

Janes cannot get to these people either but ittries to provide a rational assessment of thesituation on, under and above the seas of theworld and it backs this up with a number of spin-offpublications such as cheaper, more basic navalbooks and by publications such as JanesDefence Weekly.

Fred T. Jane was born in 1865 in Richmond,Surrey, England. He was the eldest son of thelocal Vicar but his fore-fathers had a navalconnection with naval explorers and an admiral inthe family tree. Fred provided his school with arival journal to that which stated official policy and

The Author

Graeme Andrews joined the RAN in 1955 and served inKookaburra, Sydney, Me/bourne Ouickmatch, VoyagerDuchess, Vampire and Supply before paying oft in 1968.Since then too his various activities indicate his strongmaritime bent — journalist and editor in boating magazines,ferry and tug master and inspector-surveyor with the MSB(his present employment) He has published a score ofbooks including maritime history works, the latest of which,Search for the Kobenhaven and Other Sea Stories arefirst-person experiences at sea by Australians in the 1930s.


spent more time on that and on chemistry than hedid on studying. As a result, he did not do well atschool. After school he tried to join the Army andthe RN but failed both physicals. He started workas a reporter on the Birmingham Times at aperiod before photos were printed in 'papers'. Hissketching skills were well-used and his interest innaval things grew, in 1889 he went to sea as anofficial artist-reporter for the Pictorial World andhis sketches of the naval manoeuvres of 1890which were published in The Illustrated LondonNews, Daily Chronicle and the Standard broughthim recognition.

Around this time Jane began to realise thatnaval men needed a work of reference that wouldquickly allow them to discover the identity andcapabilities of a particular naval vessel. He begansketching every ship he could see. It did not takehim long to realise the similarities betweenstructures, the value of particular armour,importance of guns and speed, not to mentionmanoeuvrability, turning radii at speed and so on.He developed his trilogy of the requisites of theefficient naval officer. These were (and are):• An understanding of what the ships of the

opposition can do and what your own vesselcan do.

• A quick identification method that also informsone of the armament and defences of the othervessel.

• A means to test theories under realisticconditions without actually 'shooting up' theother ship.The first two criteria resulted in the 1897

appearance of Janes All The World's FightingShips, a ponderous tome of 221 pages whichcontained more than 1000 carefully prepared penand ink drawings, most of which were done atsea.

In 1898 he introduced his Janes NavalWargame and by 1900 this complicated methodof evaluation of naval skills was in use by TheRoyal Norwegian Navy, The United StatesCoastal Artillery, The Imperial Russian Navy andby the Imperial Japanese Navy. Other Navies,including the Royal Navy, used it on an unofficialbasis.

In 1900 Jane produced his famous critique ofthe Russian Navy which discussed the variousweaknesses which were so well illustrated by thenaval action against the Japanese Navy at TsuHima in 1905.

In the 1900 issue of the re-named JanesFighting Ships, Jane introduced photographs forthe first time and in his 1902 edition he stated 'onlythe heavier-than-air type of flying machine seemsto have any future at all. . .'. This at a time whenthe airship roamed the skies and the Wright Brosflight was ONE year in the future. To illustrate hisfaith in air travel, Jane brought out his secondannual in 1909 -- All the World's Airships,

Aeroplanes and Dirigibles, now Janes All theWorld's Aircraft.

Because of the complexity of publishing theNaval Annual, and its size and price, most of theselect band of editors of Janes have producedspin-offs or reduced versions for the cheaper endof the market. The first of these was publishedposthumously by Fred Jane in 1916. Getting thisand the big one out In the middle of a war, mightwell have hastened the heart attack which isthought to have killed the founder.

After Jane died in March 1916 he was replacedby Maurice Prendergast who edited the annualuntil 1922. Perhaps it is fitting that Prendergastwas the second editor and not the first as'Prendergast's Fighting Ships' seems to not havethat certain ring to it.

When the famous naval historian Oscar Parkesleft the RN in 1919 he joined Prendergast as JointEditor. Parkes is best-known for his massive workon British battleships. Failing sight causedPrendergast to retire in 1922 and his place wastaken by Francis G McMurtrie with Parkes still asjoint editor.

Oscar Parkes took over as editor in his ownright in 1930 but died unexpectedly in 1934,whereupon McMurtrie was recalled, battling onthroughout World War Two with all its problems ofsupply, censorship and verification of rumour andreport, until he died in 1949. His sudden deathbrought Raymond V.B Blackman to the prestigejob. In 1970 Blackman was provided with anassistant editor, the first job of that title on thebook, in the person of Captain John Moore, RN(rtd). John Moore carried out an 'apprenticeship'of two years or so, during which he produced abrace of smaller naval books. He took over aseditor for the 1972-73 edition and has had thechair ever since. He has been, by far, the mostprolific of the Janes editors with major changesmade to the book and a steady stream of well-researched spin-offs, including a number on theSoviet armed forces.

Although there is a wide international net-workof correspondents providing much of the materialin Janes, and although most of the Western andThird World navies offer assistance, theassembly and aquisition of information which issometimes more up-to-date than that of theofficial sources, is a massive, almost 365 days ayear job and very demanding upon theincumbent. Because of this and a reported illnessin Captain John Moore's family, it may be that hewill stand down within the near future. Who will behis replacement is probably already known andagreed upon because Janes Fighting Ships,unlike any other book perhaps, is a vocation andis the sum of the men who have made it over morethan 80 years — getting the right rnan for the job issomething that must not be considered when thejob is already vacant.


THE SALVAGE OF WARSHIPVASA

by Captain AHR Brecht RAN

The building looks very ordinary from theoutside, a greyish white aluminium structureabout as high as a four storey office block,distinguished only by its unusual shape. Longand fairly narrow, marginally higher at each end,it sits beside the water at Djurgarden on themainland of Stockholm harbour in Sweden,opposite the large island of Skeppsholmen.Outside is bustling activity in a compoundsurrounded by a high wall through which touristsand marine experts alike pass via turnstile gatesafter payment of a fee. Various exhibitions,souvenir ships, a theatre, cafe and models dotthe entrance courtyard where a constant streamof people moves towards the museum.

Inside the building the great ship dominates allelse. Instinctively the visitors speak in whispersas if to sanctify the structure itself or perhaps topay homage. Marine archaeologists andstudents of maritime history are more likely tofeel a sense of awe from what they see: HisSwedish Majesty's Ship Vasa, built in 1627, sunkon her maiden voyage in 1628, yet returned fromthe depths after 333 years in a watery grave onthe bottom of Stockholm harbour.'

Vasa is indeed imposing. Years of restorationand preservation have brought her to the presentstage where she is on view to thousands ofpeople every year. Personal impressions varybut Vasa makes one common impact: that ofincredulity.

The hull rises 64 feet from keel to the upperdeck and is surrounded by viewing gallerieswhere the solid black timbers, glistening withwax-like preservative, can be inspected. Vasa is200 feet long excluding the elaborately carved,decorated bowsprit and sits in a steel cradlewhich runs the length of the building. Striking asher overall impact is, the spectacle of this uniquepiece of history has its focus in the ornate double

sterncastle gallery which towers above thehighest viewing platform where visitors cluster tophotograph and enthuse. At the top is an imageof the King; his crown held by two griffins.Beneath is the Swedish coat of arms supportedby two huge lion figures with carved drapery heldback by two putti, all fixed to a vertical wallimmediately above the upper horizontal gallerywhich is bounded by elaborate large crowns atthe point of each stern quarter. The lower galleryis held aloft by eight magnificently carved figuresand adorned with a series of warriors wearingRoman armour and carrying weapons, allembossed in gold. The effect is breathtaking.

So too is the aura of strength exuded by thethick hull planking, the huge gun ports, and thefew interior compartments which can be seen.Much of the upper deck fittings are intact,

The Author

Captain Alan Brecht pined the RAN in 1957 as atelegraphist and, after training, served in HMA shipsQuickmatch (twice), Parramatta and Melbourne. Heattended the SD officers promotion course in UK as aPetty Officer Radio Supervisor, was promoted toSub-Lieutenant SDEXC in January 1965 and served inthe RN in HMS Defender and HMS Mercury (the RNCommunications School). Since his return to the RANin 1966 he has served in HMAS Parramatta. the RANCommunications School, the Directorate of NavalCommunications (twice), Naval CommunicationsStation Canberra and HMAS Albatross. He waspromoted to Lieutenant SDEXC in January 1967 andtransferred to the General List in 1970. He attended theRN Advanced Communications Course at the RoyalMilitary College of Science, Shrivenham, UK in 1974and then served as Communications Officer in HMASMelbourne, CO of HMAS Cairns and Director,Electronic Warfare. He is presently Director of NavalCommunications.


including capstans, bollards, gratings andstumps of the three masts. Witnessing thisincredible spectacle one can only wonder howsuch a monument to the shipwright's craftsurvived all those years underwater. Why isVasa as she is today and how did this come tobe?

When Vasa was warped from her berth at theRoyal Palace bordering Stockholm harbour2 forher inaugural voyage through the archipelago, amultitude of people came to see this magnificantaddition to His Majesty's fleet. On a warm sunnyafternoon, Sunday 10 August 1628, eveningvespers behind them and a momentous navalspectacle ahead, the citizens of Stockholm hadgood reason to be thankful for the wisdom oftheir king and to be assured of the maritimesafety of the realm. The year 1628 came at theheight of the Thirty Years War in Europe (1618-1648) at a time when General Albrekt vonWallenstein supported by the CatholicHapsburgs had declared himself Admiral of theSeas surrounding Scandinavia, thereby posing athreat to Protestant Sweden. German plans toinvade Scandanavia were widely touted in thediplomatic circles of the day and obscure,impoverished Sweden seemed in much dangerduring the war's early years. One of the mostprominent figures in the political arena wasSweden's King Gustavus II Adolphus (1611-1632) who was to transform the country into oneof the leading powers of Europe, largely through

the development of a powerful navy whichbecame indispensable to the King and his army.Gustavus was to state'next to God the welfare ofthe Kingdom depends on her navy'.

In 1625 Gustavus II ordered four newwarships, to be built at the Stockholm shipyardby the Chief Naval Shipwright HenrikHybertsson. These were two large and twosmaller ships, the larger ones intended as themost powerful warships in the Baltic; Vasa wasthe second of these. She was launched in 1627after an intensive construction period whichentailed selection and transportation of oak,mostly from the island of Angso in Lake Malarand from the coast of Smaland, as well as theskills and techniques of 17th centuryshipbuilding. Timber selection was not merelythe choice of huge stands of oak, for each angledtimber or special piece had to be found in a livingtree of the correct shape and that tree felled forthe purpose

When finally ready to put to sea for the firsttime Vasa was a fitting adjunct to the RoyalPalace where she lay. Lavishly decorated withno ornament or expense spared this threemasted masterpiece of the day boasted 48 •24lb cannon plus 16 smaller pieces, total 80tons, with 24 gun ports on each side. By thestandards of the time such firepower wasdevastating but the sinister element for Vasaherself was its weight. Estimates only areavailable for her crew, put at about 133 officers

Vasa's voyages 1628-1961 Drawn by author


and men but she was built to carry 300 soldiersalthough a mere few dozen embarked for herfateful voyage.

To the thunderous acclaim of the crowdsSeverin Hansson, Vasa's captain, and JoranMatsson the Sailing Master set four sails in alight afternoon SSW breeze: fore-topsail, main-topsail, foresail and mizzen. Still in the shelter oftail cliffs south of Stadsgarden Vasa stood outinto the harbour, a physical demonstration ofSweden's naval might and purpose, echoing thecheers and rapture ashore. Then suddenly thebreeze strengthened in a squall and the cheersfell to stunned silence as Vasa heeled sharply toport and became clearly in distress. Hanssontried in vain to haul the cannon to windward buttheir weight was too much against the increasingheel. Water gushed through the lower gun portsthereby increasing the list. Miraculously Vasafought back to an even keel but in a secondheeled even more positively to port. From thisshe could not recover. Water entered throughthe upper gun ports and she was driven downwith sails still set and all flags flying. At 5pm, lessthan two minutes after the squall, Vasa wasgone.

Reports to His Majesty must have been madewith trepidation for this was a major catastrophe.Few records exist of the period immediately afterthe sinking but there is no doubt that everbodyblamed everyone but himself. Historians arefortunate that some transcripts of the Court ofEnquiry held the following September havesurvived and these show, as far as can bepieced together, that positions had becomefirmly entrenched by then.

The shipwright, Hybertsson, had died theprevious year and thus could not defend himselfagainst claims of poor workmanship, bad designand lack of any real stability in the ship. Evidenceon his behalf proved that he had shown hisdesigns to King Gustavus II himself who hadgiven them his approval. It was argued that sincethe King had placed his seal on the design then itcould not be at fault and some other reason forthe sinking would have to be found. The searchfor a scapegoat continued.

Vasa was indeed topheavy, narrow and sharpat the bottom, and inherently unstable. Hersinking is particularly notable for the fact thatsuch happenings were rare. At that time writtenplans and drawings for the construction of shipssimply did not exist and they were built againstthe methods and experience of the shipyardsconcerned. Ideas, procedures, and designs werehanded down by word of mouth and practicalexample from shipwright to shipwright so thewonder is that even more ships did not capsizethrough instability. Two well known examples ofthis unfortunate trait are the Mary Rose whichcapsized outside Portsmouth in 1545 going

down with 700 persons on board, and the equallytragic loss of the Royal George which heeledover and went to the bottom in 1782 while ridingat anchor in Portsmouth harbour; some 900persons were lost.

For Vasa the position was even moremystifying because the Court was faced with theembarrassing disclosure that soon after herlaunching the Fleet Admiral Klas Fleming hadconducted a stability test which the ship failedalarmingly. Thirty men were made to run to andfro across her upper deck but she rolled sodangerously they had to stop for fear she wouldcapsize at her berth. This without masts andrigging! Incredibly, the Admiral did nothing,Hybertsson did nothing, and in the end the Courtdid nothing. The sinking was unexplained andthe case dismissed without anyone being heldresponsible in any way at all.

Vasa's loss was a devasting blow to the Kingand his navy but pragmatists were already atwork. The hull, fittings, and solid bronze cannonwere extremely valuable so salvage expertsimmediately began to assess the feasibility ofrecovery. But the ship was in 110 feet of waterand salvage methods were primitive. Minorfragments were grappled but nothing ofimportance occurred until 1629 when the Britishengineer Ian Bulow managed to bring Vasa to aneven keel in the mud. Discouraged by his failureto achieve anything more significant Bulowwithdrew, little realising the importance hisachievement would assume, three centurieslater.

Little more happened until 1663 whentechnology took a hand in the person of Lt ColHans Albrekt von Treibelen who had invented acrude diving bell a few years before. With this hehad successfully dived in 1658 on the Danishflagship Sancfa Sophia sunk off Gothenburg in110ft. This bell was both an innovation and a testof nerve. Made of lead and 4ft 2 inches high itwas very heavy and difficult to raise, lower ormanoeuvre. The diver, clad in a watertightleather suit, stood on a square piece of lead 20inches below the bell with his head in air trappedinside. He was lowered into the water where heworked using a boathook, for periods up to 15minutes. Although primitive by present daystandards, von Treibelen's bell was quitesuccessful and in the 17th century it wasjustifiably recognised as a most importantbreakthrough in the field of salvage.

Von Treibelen sought permission to salvageVasa's cannon but initially met with officialresistance which took some time to overcome.He began work in 1663 and had considerablesuccess throughout that summer and thefollowing year. By the end of 1665 von Treibelenhad raised most of the 24-pound cannon, eachweighing about one and a half tons The


View of Vasa's sterncastle Photo courtesy of author

View of Vasa's bowsprit

Page 28 — Nov 85, Journal ol the Australian Naval Institute

Photo courtesy of author

magnitude of this task becomes more apparentwhen one remembers that the divers workedover 100 feet down in very cold water wherevisibility was murky at best and where life itselfdepended upon the most primitive of equipment.

This particular salvage is confirmed bydocuments in Stockholm which record the exportof 53 cannon in 1665 although the recipient, orcountry, is unnamed. Vasa was again disturbedin 1683 when another 24-pound cannon wasraised by someone now unknown. After this, withall accessible cannon removed, and little left butthe hull itself (now deemed worthless) the oncegreat warship was left to her fate; andsubsequently lost to living memory of the day.

The existence of the Vasa museum today, theship herself, and her importance to maritimehistory, all have their genesis in the fascinationwhich sunken ships hold for marinearchaeologists. Apart from the celebrated HMASVictory at Portsmouth few examples exist todayof the skill and craft of naval shipwrights andartisans of previous centuries. Information hasbeen gathered from Egyptian burial shipsrecovered in the great tombs of the Pharaohs inthe Pyramids of Egypt, while Roman galleysfrom Lake Meni and Viking galleys from

Denmark have provided valuable data forstudents of early shipbuilding; but in the mainhistorians have been forced to rely upon thewritten word. Unfortunately, because of thedearth of detailed knowledge about early 17thcentury sailing ships and the shortage ofrecorded information, physical examples are ofpriceless worth. The public acclaim for recoveryof the Mary Rose in 1982 is of little accountcompared to that of the historian and marinearchaeologist, for this very reason.

The marine archaeologist to be rememberedin this story is Anders Franzen, a native ofSweden who devoted most of his life to the studyof sunken ships, and a large slice of that study toVasa. Soon after the end of World War IIFranzen began cataloguing the ancient wrecksof the Baltic Sea, testing at the same time histheory that the Baltic was a graveyard uniquefrom all others. He considered this sea to be atreasure trove because of its fresh waterproperties.

Apart from the menace of fire, wooden sailingships up to the 18th century were vulnerablemost of all to a seemingly insignificant wood-worm, Teredo Navalis, the borer. This pest, withits slender worm-like body, grew up to 12 inches

-V. 'trrr

Vasa in dry-dock after salvage in 1961 Vasa museum photograph courtesy P. Trick


in length and, boring with a rasp like action, coulddevastate any timber. Each female laidapproximately 100 million eggs in one year andthe larvae entered the wood leaving no traceother than a pinhole. Timber could therefore looksound but be rotten, riddled with countlesstunnels bored along the gram but never merging.Defences against Teredo Navalis led finally tocopper sheathing of underwater hulls but forsunken ships there was no protection.

Franzen argued that because the TeredoNavalis could not survive in cold, fresh water,shipwrecks in the Baltic sea should be foundintact. Minor discoveries confirmed his theoryand as the 1940s drew to a close he increasedhis research into Vasa, trying to find some recordof where in the harbour she might be.

Years of fruitless effort passed; while AndersFranzen spent his winters researching thelibraries for old records and the summersscouring the Stockholm harbour with a grapnel,even his friends began to question his devotionto the task. Some less kind thought he had losthis sanity and rational thought; yet he persisted.In 1954 he deciphered an ancient script whichled the following year to discovery of an 18thcentury map of the harbour. Franzen wasrevitalised and, convinced that he knew whereVasa lay, he began thousands of soundings offStadsgardskajen working well after dark, everyday of that summer. It was all in vain. Vasa andher location were as far off as before.

Franzen was nothing if not determined andhe returned again to his research. Then camethe breakthrough he had sought for so long.During the winter of 1956 he came across theoriginal letter sent to King Gustavus II by theCouncil of the Realm two days after Vasa's loss.'The vital words must have seemed to glowbefore him:

'and this past Sunday, as stated, shortlyafter evensong came toBeckholmsudden.1

The little island of Beckholm was well known toFranzen who in his youth had been fishing in thatvicinity many times. He was now to cast a line forhis greatest catch ever. In August 1956 he beganintensive sampling of the area using a specialdevice which on striking wood, bored in and tooka sample. His reaction is unrecorded, but canwell be imagined, when one sample brought upblack oak.4 Repeated sampling yielded identicalresults: Vasa was found.

Although certain that his long search was overFranzen needed confirmation before theannouncement could be made to a disbelievingworld. With the assistance of trainee divers fromthe naval diving school in Stockholm, Franzenreturned to the site and began preparations forthem to dive on the wreck. By this time Vasa had

been on the bottom for 328 years and all of hersuperstructure was gone; she was a tangle oflost lines and anchors from countless ships andboats, covered in debris and totally derelict in themurky gloom.

In their modern diving suits equipped with airhoses and telephones the navy divers weretechnically much more advanced than those ofvon Treibelen but they too had difficulty with thecold, the current, and the very poor visibility. Thecharge diver reported fragmentally to Franzenthat he could make out what appeared to be afantastic sterncastle rising out of the mud,covered by a labyrinth of cables. Groping in themurk he reported what seemed to be a curvedsolid wall, broken by square holes at regularintervals. These could only be gunports and foran elated Franzen they could only be in Vasa.

Compared to the centuries she spent underwater the next period of Vasa's saga is minisculebut the four years to 1960 proved to be the mostimportant of her life to that time. Salvage was nosimple matter and finding the ship was but theeasy part. Vasa lay deeply embedded 8 feet intothe clay bottom of the harbour, 110 feet belowthe surface, and then covered by almost 10 feetof soft black mud. Had she not been on an evenkeel her salvage intact would have beenimpossible because she would have torn topieces from the suction. The authorities hadgood cause to remember Ian Bulow's efforts somany years before.

The decision to raise the ship was not takeneasily. Her condition was unknown and reasonsuggested that she would fragment if disturbed,assuming that it was possible to move her at all.A Vasa committee, established in January 1957,considered many proposals of which two veryserious ones were to fill the ship with tennis ballsor to freeze water inside her so that she wouldfloat to the surface as a huge block of iceEventually it was decided to rely upon provenconventional means and plans were establishedto lift the ship between two pontoons using themethods which successfully raised ships of theGerman High Seas Fleet from the bottom ofScapa Flow in the 1920s. A private company,Neptune Salvaging Co. won the contract andbefore the winter of 1957 work began.

Effective salvage could only be attemptedafter Vasa had been cleared of rubbish so thisbecame the first task. At the same time thedivers began to collect and fossick for thethousands of relics which lay around the wreck,having been dislodged over the years orscattered during the sinking. Together with findsmade in the ship itself these totalled 24 000 ofwhich about 14 000 had to be put back in theirproper place after Vasa was raised. Many of theremainder now form the 'Life on Board' exhibit at


Ithe museum which houses a variety of items asdiverse as a butter box with rancid butter still in itand the personal properly of the seamen, takenfrom sea chests found onboard.

One most important contribution to the manydecisions made by the Vasa committee duringthis period was the confirmation that TeredoNavalis had indeed been defeated by the Balticas Anders Franzen suggested. The manyfantastic wooden objects brought to the surfacefrom around the ship showed no trace ofborer-rot and a relieved committee knew thatVasa was exceedingly well preserved. Details ofher sculptured ornamentation came to light:knights, warriors, mythological figures, seacreatures, grotesque designs now blackenedfrom the mud and clay but with traces of goldhere and there as a reminder of the splendourwhich once had adorned the ship.

Salvage operations underwater were led byPer Edwin Falling, a Chief Diver from theSwedish navy which cooperated with NeptuneSalvaging and provided much of the diving effort.The major problem was that even with the debrisremoved Vasa was so embedded in the mud thata detailed investigation could be carried out onlyafter concentrated preparation, and very, veryslowly. All of the iron nails had rusted away sogreat care had to be taken that she did not fall topieces around the divers as they probed,prodded, and worked. Adding to the difficultieswas the intense Scandinavian cold which meantthat diving could only be carried out in thewarmer months. There was much to do but evenat this early stage it was clear that progresswould be slow.

After much discussion it was decided that theonly way to prise Vasa from her bed of clay andmud was to tunnel underneath her and feedcables through which would then be attached tothe pontoons. (Flooding the pontoons enablesthe slack to be taken up on each cable and thenas the water is pumped from the pontoons, thewreck rises). Six tunnels were planned.

Although work began in 1957 the first tunneltook eleven months until April 1958 and wascompleted then only after tunnelling from eachside of the ship was introduced. Two majorproblems were encountered by the divers: firstthe intense cold at that depth, even in summerand with the latest in insulated diving suits;second was the blackness. Buried almost twentyfeet under the ooze the divers could work only byfeel and then for no more than 15 minutes at atime. The knowledge that 200 feet of warshipcontaining hundreds of tons of stone ballast wasimmediately above them could hardly haveimproved matters. The difficult task would havebeen impossible had it not been for theZetterstrom jet, a powerful water device inventedby Arne Zetterstrom which cut through the mud

and sucked the debris out behind the diver intotubes which carried it away. Grappling with thehose took great effort and strength on the part ofthe divers who emerged from the tunnelexhausted after 15 minutes, and as there wasonly a limited number of divers the work couldnot be hastened.

Even though the wreck was universallyacknowledged to be Vasa the final proof came inSeptember 1958 when a cannon was raisedbearing the inscription 'G.A.R.S.1 (GustavusAdolphus Rex Suecise). There could now be nodoubt that this was indeed the pride of the 17thCentury Swedish navy.

By mid 1959 salvage had advanced to thepoint where four tunnels were finished and theend of this first phase was in sight. The fifth wasdone by 8th July and the last completed at theend of the month. Before the cables could beattached it was necessary to check the ship tomake sure that no sign of disintegration wasapparent. Fears were still held that the wreckcould not withstand the enormous pressure andstresses if she was moved so the crews tookextraordinary care in the examination which nowtook place. When it was proved that all was well,temporary wires were placed under the hull andsecured to the pontoons. After this was done thedivers celebrated the end to 1500 hoursunderwater thus far.

Pontoons were filled on 12th August andsubmerged. When the 6 inch steel hawsers hadreplaced the temporary wires under Vasa all wasin readiness for the first lifting attempt. On 20thAugust the pontoons were pumped out and afterwhat seemed an eternity in which nothinghappened, Vasa lifted about one inch. Thengradually and with immense reluctance the mudgave way, releasing its 331 years hold on thehulk. Vasa was free and sitting in a steel cradlejust above the bottom. Phase 1 was successful.

Damage to the ship was so severe thatattempts to float her in her present position, oreven to bring her to the surface, would havebeen disastrous. Shallow water was neededwhere Vasa could lie at a depth more amenableto the repair work needed to make her buoyant.Nail holes had to be stopped, missing timbersreplaced, and the more dilapidated parts of thehull, forward and around the poop, had to beplanked. None of this was possible where shenow lay and the next phase of the salvage was tomove her across the harbour.

Vasa was slowly raised above the mud,suspended in her cradle. Weighing about 700tons deadweight and as fragile as a thousandeggs she was to be treated gently but with greatskill and care. The first move of 100 yardspreceded a further 17 needed to transfer her thenext 350 yards to shallow water inside theprotected inlet of Kastellholmen.


Each of the latter moves was extremely shortas the salvagers worked to ensure the great shipwould arrive intact. In retrospect the initial movewas too ambitious and entailed risks whichshould not have been sustained. The modestaims of subsequent lifts reflect the danger to theentire operation which was by this time fullyappreciated by officialdom and NeptuneSalvaging Co alike,

The eighteen-stage move shifted Vasa intoabout 50 feet of water and the course of herjourney was complicated and indirect.Sometimes she slid backwards into the positionwhere she had been at the end of the previous liftand on others she refused to move at all. Onoccasions she sank so deeply into the mud thatshe was as far from the surface as she had beenbefore that move. Altogether, the operation wasfrustrating and difficult. It was necessary at timesto turn the ship completely round and tow herstern-first but despite all of these problems thededicated work continued and she finallyreached the objective. It was now clear that Vasacould probably be brought to the surfaceprovided she was properly prepared.

Underwater repair took all of the 1960summer. Gun ports were sealed and damagerepaired as Vasa gradually became morewatertight in her temporary berth 9 fathomsdown. On 24th April 1961 it was time for the finallift to the surface, an event which was the centreof world-wide interest and attention. Morewitnesses would see her emerge than hadwatched her sink. They hydraulic winchesstrained and slowly, after 333 years in the deep,the ancient warship broke the surface beforethousands of spectators and press, radio, andtelevision media from all over the world.

Vasa could not be left exposed to the air so arace against time now began. A vast quantity ofmud had first to be pumped out of her as well asthe battle against seawater pouring in fromnearly 1500 leaks. The pumps prevailed. Afterbeing released from the two pontoons Oden andFrigg which had supported her for so long, Vasamade the last 100 yards to the appropriatelynamed Beckholmen dock on her own keel. Onthis happy day she finally entered the dock with aslight list to port and draught of 22 feet. Aftermore than three centuries Vasa was safe.

In some respects the discovery and salvageform only the first part of the operation forfeverish activity now began to recover thetreasures Vasa held inside her and also toprotect the hull. Separate articles can be writtenabout the fight for her physical preservation, theunique discoveries made by the archaeologists,her fantastic decoration, and life onboard. Asthese are outside the scope of this offering it issufficient to recognise the achievement which

culminates in the present museum. But for thededication of extraordinary men like AndersFranzen and the brave daring of Falling and hisdivers, '' not to mention the army of salvageexperts, officials, workers, aides, seamen andenthusiasts, Vasa would still be lost on theharbour bottom. History would indeed be thepoorer.

This story has no ending for the Vasarestoration still continues today. She now rests ina purpose built aluminium structure whichfacilitates public viewing from galleries aroundher hull. Sweden intends to restore the betweendecks further than has been feasible up until nowand it may one day be possible to tread these(now) 357 years old decks, and to imagine whatlife was like in 1628 when Vasa was in heruntried glory. For the present one must roamthrough the exhibitions and relics or spend hoursinside the building contemplating the impact thisgrand old lady of the sea makes just by beingthere. For the student of history, the romanticist,the naval expert or simply the curious, Vasa hasmore than enough to satisfy all.

Notes

1 Vasa was a ship of the line, one of a series of the largestvessels in the Swedish fleet Named Wasen' after one ofthe symbols of the Swedish crown she is often referred toas kVasa but the Royal Swedish Academy and the AdvisoryCouncil for Swedish Terminology and Usage recommendthe name Vasa, spelled with a V

2. Now the Grand Hotel at Skeppsbron in the area ofStockholm known as Old Town.

3. This report is now located at the Swedish National RecordsOffice in Stockholm Gustavus II had not witnessed thesinking because he was leading a military campaign againstPoland, at the time.

4. The initial sample of black oak is preserved on display atthe Vasa musuem.

5 Falling received the Vasa medal from the king in 1959 Hisdivers were awarded special other decorations for theirservices.

References

Raising the Vasa — Roy Saunders.The Warship Vasa — Anders FranzenWasa — Swedish Museum guideDeep Diving and Marine Archaeology in Stockholm —Anders FranzenThe Vasa Saga — B. Almqvist.The Swedish Warship Wasa — L Kvarning, B. Ohrelius.

Page 32 — Nov '85, Journal ol the Australian Naval Institute

r(Part 2 of this account of the ships 1788-89 Voyage will be published in the February issue)

HMS SIRIUSVOYAGE TO THE GAPE OF GOOD

HOPE 1788-89PART 1

by Ray Jones

In 1788-89 HMS Sirius sailed from PortJackson to Table Bay at the Cape of Good Hopeand back to Sydney, carrying food for the newsettlement at Sydney Cove. The voyage isusually passed over in a sentence or two ingeneral accounts of the settlement at PortJackson which stress the need for the provisionsshe carried, interesting maritime features of thevoyage are ignored.

But Sirius' 1788-89 voyage has considerablemaritime historical interest for two main reasons.Most important was the pioneering of the bestroute for ships sailing from Port Jackson toEurope. Before Sirius showed the way, mastersof the few ships leaving Port Jackson bound forEngland were variously advised: to go westacross the Indian Ocean, or to go north aroundNew Guinea and through the East Indies (nowIndonesia) to Batavia (now Djakarta), or to crossthe Pacific Ocean and round Cape Horn. Therewas insufficient knowledge of global weatherpatterns to give definite advice. Captain JohnHunter showed in HMS Sirius that the fastest,safest route was across the Pacific eastward athigh latitude, around Cape Horn, then join upwith better known shipping routes in the AtlanticOcean.

An account of Sirius' voyage also illustratesthe problems typical of any voyage in thatremote, little-known region of the world. Thesedifficulties dominated the early growth of whitesettlement in Australia for several decades.Scurvy, weather damage, the danger ofshipwreck and navigational problems all playedtheir part in Sirius' story and were features moreor less present in any voyage to or from Australiaat that time. Above all was the uncertain qualityof the charts and the problem of finding a ship'sposition at sea.

Maritime navigation at the end of theeighteenth century was no longer as haphazardas it had been a century before but it was not yeta precise science. At least the general shape ofthe world's oceans was known although thereremained a lot of detailed charting to be done.The first Hydrographer of the Navy was notappointed until 1795 and the formation of arecognised body of professional hydrographers

was in the future. Charts were published for profitand quality varied widely; there was no acceptedchart standard. Royal Navy officers had topurchase charts from civilian chart dealers inLondon, so whatever charts Sirius (or any othership) carried depended on choices made by herofficers before leaving England.

Finding the position of a ship at sea to mark onthese charts was sometimes an uncertainbusiness. The technique of finding latitude byobservation of the sun was long established butmethods of finding longitude were still beingdeveloped. A procedure for observing theangular distance between the moon and anotherbody (the lunar distance), then comparing thisdistance with that between the same bodies atGreenwich, was developed in the 1760s. TheNautical Almanac, containing tables of predictedlunar distances necessary to use this technique,was first published for 1767.

This apparently promising lunar distancetechnique suffered from the fundamentaldrawback that predicting lunar position to therequired accuracy was beyond astronomicalknowledge of the day and results of a lunardistance observation could be up to half adegree in error. There arose the practice oftaking sets of lunar distances over extendedperiods of time and using the average whenestablishing the position of a port for charting. Asan example, Sydney Cove's longitude was foundby taking the mean of 312 lunar distancesmeasured on 15 days in March and April 1788 bytwo officers.' This was not possible at sea but theprinciple of multiple observations was oftenapplied when an important position was beingfound during a voyage As well as one officermaking several observations, all the qualifiedofficers on board would take a set ofobservations and the mean of all observedpositions was accepted.

The AuthorRay Jones served in a variety of aircrew and StaffPostings in the RAN until he retired in 1983 to continuehis education. He is presently studying at theUniversity of Tasmania.

Journal of the Australian Naval institute. Nov 85 — Page 33

If Greenwich time was available in a ship,comparison with local time found by observationof the sun would give longitude from Greenwichand the longitude problem would be solved.Considerable effort had been devoted to designand construction of a time-keeper which wouldkeep Greenwich time in a ship at sea andtime-keepers with acceptable reliability becameavailable in the mid-eighteenth century. CaptainCook established their use at sea when he wasloud in praise of a prototype time-keeper takenon his second voyage in the 1770s, but they didnot immediately become widely available.

Using time-keepers for finding longitude relied(apart from being able to see the sun) not somuch on great accuracy as on consistency. It didnot matter very much if the time keeper wasslightly slow or fast provided the rate of losing orgaming was constant and known, so allowancefor errors could be made when calculatinglongitude. If the rate changed during the voyagethen longitudes found would be increasinglywrong without the seafarer being aware of theerror.

Combined with the difficulties of positionfinding were those of chart accuracy andcompleteness in remote regions. Cook hadcompleted the discovery of all major lands in thePacific and the Indian Ocean had beenreasonably well known for some time butnumerous islands remained to be found. Theregion immediately north and north-east ofAustralia was particularly poorly known.Compounding the navigational problem was thepresence on charts of islands which existed onlyin the imagination of their 'discoverers'. Evenland which had been discovered had notnecessarily been charted in detail. This was thecase for most of the east coast of Australia andof southern Van Diemens Land (i.e. Tasmania):the latter had been visited by several explorersbut had not been thoroughly surveyed. Lack oftime forced explorers to make running surveysduring which inlets were not investigated (oralways noticed). The confident-looking solidlines on the resulting charts sometimes bore onlyslight resemblance to the real coastline.

In this uncertain navigational environment, anyvoyage from Port Jackson was inevitably avoyage of exploration regardless of any otherpurpose. In March 1788, HMS Supply hadstumbled across Lord Howe Island while sailingbetween Port Jackson and Norfolk Island anddiscoveries of this kind were common aroundAustralia for some years. Similar accidentaldiscoveries by Sinus would not have beensurprising under any circumstance but hervoyage to Table Bay was marked by planningtypical of an exploration voyage with special

urgency because of the food situation in thecolony.

The voyage was ordered by Captain ArthurPhillip, RN, as governor of the colony and asPrincipal Captain of HMS Sirius, after the firstcrop planted in the colony failed to germinate.Seed grain held for the next season was plantedimmediately but food shortage approached andCaptain John Hunter, RN, was ordered to takeSirius to the Cape of Good Hope for food. Beforethe First Fleet left England, Hunter had beenappointed as Second Captain of Sirius withauthority to act as Commanding Officer whenPhillip sent her away from the colony onoccasions such as this.

Sirius had been built as the storeship Berwickand had been in reserve near London when theNavy Board selected her as the vessel to leadthe First Fleet to New South Wales Shecommissioned on 25 October 1786 as a sixthrate of about 550 tonnes (reports differ), and40.2 metres long.

After arriving in Sydney Cove in January 1788,Sirius had anchored as guard ship at the mouthof the cove and her crew were employed aroundthe settlement. Her carpenters had been inparticular demand ashore and so had beenunable to carry out maintenance onboard. Somecaulking had been inexpertly done on her sideand decks but other ships husbandry had beenpostponed. Towards the end of September 1788Sirius was prepared for her voyage to the Capeof Good Hope. Eight guns with carriages, shotand gunpowder, a spare anchor and otherarticles were landed to make room for thesupplies she was to bring back. Hunterreluctantly complied with Phillip's directive toleave the ship's longboat behind for use in thecolony.

Phillip's written orders to Hunter were issuedon 30 September. Hunter records there hadbeen a difference of opinion between them overwhether Sirius should sail east or west to theCape. The westerly route was a shorter distanceand Phillip strongly recommended this route butleft the final decision to Hunter. This difference ofopinion between the two senior naval officersover the best route between Port Jackson andthe Cape of Good Hope illustrated thedeficiences in knowledge of weather in theAustralian region. Lack of knowledge of windsmeant that any voyage from Port Jackson boundfor England lacked a recognised best route.There were three possible routes for a ship totake to reach better-known waters in whichtraditional routes could be followed to Europe.These were later described by Hunter as thenorthern, western and southern passages.

The northern passage went north from PortJackson, north of New Guinea, then through the


East Indies to Batavia. Shipping routes fromBatavia across the Indian Ocean to the Cape ofGood Hope and on to Europe were well known.The considerable disadvantages of the northernroute included vague knowledge of the islandsnorth-east of Australia which were rumoured tobe inhabited by fierce natives. Furthermore, theDutch jealously guarded charts of their EastIndies in which winds were often unfavourablylight and variable. The southern route wentacross the Pacific Ocean, around Cape Hornthen to the Cape of Good Hope or to Rio deJaneiro. Weather around Cape Horn was asignificant deterrent to using this route. Thewestern route from Sydney, south around VanDiemens Land then west across the IndianOcean to the Cape of Good Hope was theshortest and most direct route. This routeappeared most attractive on paper because itavoided poorly charted land for most of the way.Unfortunately it required a ship to battle theprevailing wind for nearly the whole way. A shipsetting out on this route would be faced with aslow and uncomfortable voyage.

The dilemma of choosing a route faced thetransports and storeships of the First Fleet whenthey dispersed from Sydney after their releasefrom government service. Three bound for Chinato load tea faced a similar dilemma but thegeneral direction of their voyage was pre-determined. The remaining ships returning to

England had to select one of the three routes.Four of them had left Port Jackson before

Sirius departed but news of their experiences onthe voyages could not have filtered back toSydney when Sirius sailed. Two of them chose tosail together via the northern route to Batavia.They encountered unfavourable weather andscurvy ravaged the crews so badly as they madeslow progress that one ship was scuttled andsurviving personnel combined in the other. Thisdesperate measure was barely sufficient and thesingle ship arrived at Batavia with only one crewmember capable of going aloft. A team of sailorsfrom ships in Batavia came onboard to bring herinto harbour.

Two other ships elected to return to Englandvia Cape Horn. They crossed the Pacific atmedium latitudes and reached Rio de Janeirowith insufficient working sailors to bring the shipsinto harbour unaided.

When Hunter was deciding which way to go tothe Cape of Good Hope he considered earlierexplorers' reports and remembered the westerlywinds experienced by the First Fleet in 1787. Hedecided the route to the west would be '. . . along and tedious voyage . . . ' ' which, as far as heknew, had not been attempted before. Heundoubtedly took note of Cook's voyage fromNew Zealand to Cape Horn across the Pacificmostly between 50 and 60 degrees Southlatitude in November and December 1774 as

*

'

HMS Sirius in Botany Bay — from an engraving from The Voyage of Governor Phillip to Botany Baypublished 1789.

Journal ot the Australian Naval Institute. Nov 85 — Page 35

Helping

itsdedollars inAustralia.

Marine Systems

*-

Plessey is a highlycompetitive, highlyinnovative Australiansupplier of defenceelectronics. We've provenourselves countless timesas prime contractors tothe services, including thedesign and developmentof sensors and associatedequipment.

We're not onlycompetitive and innovative.But being an Australiancompany, we're right herewhere you need us forback-up and service. Andwe back that even further,when necessary with thehelp of our overseasconnections. Talk to usabout systems engineering,equipment, supply,installation, commissioningand life-cycle support. Withmore than a thousandpeople and the mostadvanced technical facili-ties in Australia, we offerits defence forces a tech-nological capability andimmediacy of contact andservice that no-one in thiscountry can match. Call usand we'll prove it.

Plessey Australia PtyLimited Electronic SystemsDivision NSW: Faraday Park.Railway Road, Meadowbank2114. Telephone 807 0400Telex: 21471 ACT: 33 AltreeCourt, Phillip, 2606.Telex: AA62165Telephone: (062)822900

PLESSEY


an indication that, at the time ot year Sinus wouldbe voyaging, the east bound route was possibleat high latitudes. He believed his voyage was fartoo urgent to be trying experiments such as thewestern route which had '. . . never yet beenattempted, not even by ships employed in thatkind of service which leaves it in their power tomake experiments (i.e. exploration ships) . . .'He intended to go south from Port Jackson thensouth-east past New Zealand until heencountered the westerlies which, he expected,would carry Sirius quickly to Cape Horn.

Sirius unmoored on 1 October and saileddown the harbour to a lower anchorage justinside the heads, ready to sail with the landbreeze next morning. She carried basicprovisions for four months having left some ofher victualling stores for use in the settlement.Whei. she cleared Port Jackson on 2 October1788 the wind was south-west and strong,with thick, hazy and dirty weather, ,.."

As soon as the hull began working at sea,Sirius began leaking. The carpenter's report ofthe leak caused Hunter considerable concern,not only because of the long voyage ahead ofthem through barely known waters, but becausehis sailors were not as healthy as they shouldhave been when setting out on a long voyage.The crew had been eating mostly salt provisionssince leaving the Cape of Good Hope inNovember 1787 with the First Fleet. GardenIsland in Port Jackson had been made availableto Sirius from February 1788 for growingvegetables, but the amount grown was not great.They had also eaten a few fresh fish caught inPort Jackson but, overall, the sailors' diet hadpre-disposed them to scurvy. Manning thepumps regularly would place an extra demandon this already weakened crew.

Within a few days the leak was isolated to anarea near the bow on the starboard side justbelow the water line. The cause was attributed toan iron bolt '. . . being corroded by the copper.. ,'5 allowing water to enter. On the port tackSirius made 13 to 15 centimetres an hour andhad to be pumped out every two hours to holddown the water level. Attempts to plug the leak atsea failed.

From Port Jackson Sirius ran south about 180miles off the coast seeking the westerlies. Hunterwas also looking for isolated islands similar toLord Howe Island which HMS Supply haddiscovered earlier in the year. None were seen.

By 9 October Sirius was east of the southernextremity of Van Diemens Land and alteredcourse to pass south of New Zealand. Thetemperature had dropped noticeably andadditional clothing was issued to those in need ofit as Hunter intended to sail further south. Thesouth-easterly track was maintained while Sirius

passed south of New Zealand on 12 October andcrossed 50° South latitude two days later. Nextday she altered course to slightly south of east totake her to Cape Horn. The surgeonrecommended special measures against scurvybegin at this stage in the voyage and maltessence was served to each man daily; this wasthe only anti-scorbutic carried in the vessel.

By the beginning of November, Sirius hadsettled down to the long haul to the Horn. On the1st she reached 55° South and passed 152°West longitude (or as Hunter recorded it, 208East). Hunter had chosen this track because itlay between the tracks of ships on Cook'sexpeditions and he hoped to find any islands inthis unexplored region. Hunter commented onthe large number of penguins around the ship;he assumed (incorrectly) that, since they laideggs on the land yet were so slow, land must benearby.

Air temperatures continued decreasing, and1 C was often being recorded by mid-November.In that month Sirius covered 3407 miles at anaverage speed of 4.7 knots.' Icebergs werebeing met by the end of November when shewas still at 55 South; sometimes Sirius had toalter course to avoid these '. .. ice islands. . ."

As they drew closer to Cape Horn. Hunter tookhis track across an island called Diego Ramirezmarked on his chart about thirty miles from theHorn. At noon on 26 November he took a goodaltitude of the sun (giving latitude). That morninghe and Lieutenant Bradley had each taken a setof lunar distances (giving longitude) whichagreed to within a few miles. This position putthem very close to the marked island but landwas not in sight and Sirius turned towards CapeHorn.

Hunter had no intention of searching further forDiego Ramirez because of the urgency of hisvoyage, not only for the settlement at PortJackson but, more immediately, for the health ofhis crew and the safety of his ship. As Hunterhad feared when Sirius left Sydney early inOctober, inadequate fresh food for the crew inSydney had predisposed them to scurvy whichwas now apparent and Sirius carried none of therecognised treatments. Far from being surprisedat scurvy breaking out within two months ofleaving a port he was surprised it had taken solong to occur since they had now been over ayear without adequate fresh food.

Adverse winds slowed progress after roundingCape Horn when speed became even moreimportant as Sirius' crew was reduced by scurvy.For the first twelve days of December sheaveraged 64 miles per day (an average speed of2.7 knots). During this time Hunter was trying tomake headway to the north-east seekingsunshine to ease scurvy symptoms but the wind,


such as there was, was unseasonably north-easterly ensuring very slow progress.

The first death from scurvy occurred on 12December: the sailor concerned had a lungdisease as well but Hunter attributed his deathprimarily to scurvy. After 12 December the windincreased in strength from the north-west orsouth-west and Sirius made much better timetowards Table Bay. For twelve dys from 13December she averaged 146 miles per day (6.1knots) bowling along in gales of wind.

Since rounding Cape Horn Sirius had beencontinuously among icebergs. Hunter noted theyranged in size from '.. . the size of a countrychurch. . .'" to three miles in circumference. Heimplies that, had the nights not been very short,his ship would have been in danger at night. Theicefields thinned appreciably at 46 South on 18December and the last ice was passed at 44"South on 20 December after twenty-eight daysamong icebergs.

Sirius crossed the Greenwich meridian on 25

The dilemma facing Hunter — to sail the shorter distance west against the wind or the longerdistance east with following winds — is illustrated by this chart, an amended copy of one engraved byFaden and Jeffreys Geographer to the King and published in 1775.


December and repeated that day. Hunter'sjournal, by then, records 28 of the crew as sick,some of them dying. The next death, from scurvyalone, occurred on 30 December. Siriuscontinued towards Table Bay but there was nowdoubt over her position. On 31 December lunardistances taken by Bradley and Hunter gave alongitude of 17 07' East at noon but the time-keeper gave a longitude of 1810' East, while thelongitude of Table Bay was 18 25' East but landwas not in sight. The time keeper had developedan unknown error and was no longer trustworthy.

From astronomical observations, Hunter knewSirius was in the latitude of Table Bay so headopted the time-honoured procedure of runningdown the latitude for the rest of 31 December.After nightfall, because land was close ahead(judging from astronomical observations), Siriusstood out to sea until about midnight then turnedtowards land somewhere to the east. Anotherseaman died of scurvy during the night. At firstlight, land was sighted and by afternoon Siriuswas near the entrance of Table Bay where sheanchored for the night.

The First Lieutenant was sent ashore toascertain the state of relations between Englandand the Netherlands and confirmed they wereagain friendly. Had they been at war Sirius wouldhave been liable to detention because her crewwas in no condition to sail anywhere else. Shenow had only twelve men in each watch notbedridden and half of these twelve wereincapable of going aloft because of muscularcontractions caused by scurvy. Many of the sickwere close to death. Next day Sirius sailed upTable Bay and anchored. The Governorindicated Hunter could have whatever wasneeded and forty crewmembers were landed tothe hospital.

Sirius' voyage from Sydney was widelyregarded with surprise for the short time taken.She had taken 92 days to sail 9961 miles givingan average run of 108 miles per day and anaverage speed of 4.5 knots throughout. On somedays with less favourable winds she had runmuch less: the worst day's run was 9 miles on 21October 1788.' But Sirius was no greyhound ofthe seas as her performance with the First Fleethad shown; little HMS Supply had been selectedby Phillip as the faster vessel to take him toBotany Bay ahead of the main part of the fleet.Sirius was not a notably fast ship, but he madeoptimum use of good winds. Had she notexperienced unseasonable contrary winds whennorth-east of Cape Horn, an even faster journeywould have been completed.

In Table Bay, Sirius, was heeled over and thetroublesome leak near the bow, found andplugged. The cause was confirmed aselectrolytic corrosion between an iron bolt and

the copper sheathing. The bolt had dropped outcompletely just after the ship left Port Jacksonleaving a hole more than 2.5 centimetres indiameter which was now filled with a woodenplug. Many other smaller holes, left by nailsoriginally securing the skirting board at the top ofthe copper sheath but now entirely corroded,were also plugged. The ship still leaked, but notas much as before.

By January 1789 HMS Sirius had successfullysailed half way around the world to loadprovisions for the colony at Port Jackson andhad proven the route across the Pacific was fastand safe, at least during the southern Summer.Now Hunter had to return to Sydney with thefood. The concluding part of this article willdescribe the second part of the voyage.

Notes1 Captain John Hunter, Transactions at Port Jackson and

Norfolk Island. John Stockdale London. 1793, Facsimileedition, Adelaide. 1968, pp 87-88.

2. Eric G. Forbes, The Birth of Scientific Nuri/ttiiion. NationalMaritime Museum, London, 1974, pp 11-13.

3. op cit, Hunter, p93.4 loc cit.5. ibid. p94.6 These distances are calculated between noon positions

recorded in Hunter s journal No allowance is made fordeviations from a straight line between the noon positions.

7 op cit, Hunter, p988. ibid, p101.9. The day's run figures assume the recorded noon positions

are correct. Mariners of the time often recorded threelongitudes: that from lunar distances, that from the timekeeper and that from log and compass The three rarelyagreed and different ones were entered in the log On theoccasion referred to the recorded weather indicates poorsailing conditions.

References—for Parts 1 and 2Beaglehole, J.C. The Exploration of the Pacific (3ed), A. &

C. Black, London, 1975.Brown, O.K. Its Rough Out There in Warship No. 30 of

April 1984. pp 90-1Collins. David The English Colony in New South Wales

vol. 1 Caddell & Davies, London, 1798 Fascimileedition, Libraries Board of South Australia,Adelaide, 1971.

Forbes. Eric G. The Birth ot Scientific Navigation, NationalMaritime Musuem, London, 1974.

Hunter John. Transactions at Port Jackson and NorfolkIsland. John Stockdale, London, 1793. Fascimileedition, Libraries Board of South Australia,Adelaide, 1968

Mackaness. George. The Life of Vice-Admiral WilliamEtligh R.N., F.R.S., Angus and Robertson, Sydney,1951.

Ritchie, G S. The Admiralty Chart, Hollis and Carter,London, 1967

Taylor, E.G.R Navigation in the Days of Captain Cook,National Maritime Museum, London, 1974.

Waters, D.W Science and the Techniques of Navigationin the Renaissance. National Maritime Museum,London. 1976.


You must spot it in time to stop it in timeAn approaching sea skimming missile A deadlythreat whatever type of vessel you operate Canyou detect it in time for counteraction?

The Sea GIRAFFE multi-purpose naval searchradar is capable of detecting an incoming seaskimmer at full combat ranges and in all sight con-ditions Even the smallest version,Sea GIRAFFE 50,

rhe ERICSSON SEA GIRAFFEA family of multi-purpose naval search radars for smallFP8 's up to Ingate-sized ships

detects a sea skimmer at a distance of 15 kmOutstanding sea skimmer detection capability is

only one of the Sea GIRAFFE features This newgeneration naval radar combines the functions ofair search, surface search and surface fire controlin one radar It is able to detect surface targets,strike aircraft, helicopters, air-to-surface andsurface-to-surface missiles Also the future threatto naval vessels, the diving missile

Sea GIRAFFE is available in three versions, SeaGIRAFFE 50,100 and 150 They feature an MTI im-provement factor of 50 dB in combination with fre-quency agility

Now in production for the Swedish navy

Contact us for further information'

ERICSSONTelefonaktiebolagel L M EricssonDefence and Space Systems DivisionPO Box 1001 S-431 26 MOLNDAL SwedenTelex 20905 encmi s


Now We Are SI . . .Well, Almost

The Royal Australian Nursing Service (RANNS)Comes of Age

by Lieutenant Commander E.J. Coles RAN

Naval nursing passes back into history some200 years to the time when sailors took theirwomen to sea to care for them, Less colourfullybut equally important for RAN history is 2November 1985, the 21st anniversary of there-formed RANNS.

Following lengthy discussion into the feasibilityof a nursing service, a decision was made inDecember 1963 by the then Minister for theNavy, Senator John Gorton to re-introduce theRANNS. This followed a lapse of 16 years duringwhich the navy's nursing care was provided by aloyal band of approximately 20 civilian nursingsisters spread from Manus island to WesternportBay. So the RANNS was re-formed on 2November 1964 and thus began another chapterin the history of naval nursing. This chapter wasto last 20 years and seven months when, on 7June 1985, the final words were written with theabolition of the designation 'RANNS' and are-title of 'Nursing Branch'.

During those years the nursing serviceunderwent many significant changes; uniformand rank titles, equal pay, terms of employmentand conditions of service, to mention just a few.In 1971 the RAANS uniform saw a markedchange. The red cap badge was withdrawn, aswas the summer blue cotton cape, the navalcrown brooch worn with the working rig, theepaulette replica on the winter cape, and becketsfrom all uniforms. These were replaced by a goldcap badge; and shoulder boards and sleevelacing as worn by the male officers but withmaroon distinction cloth. Collar bars of gilt metal,reproducing in miniature the distinctive marks ofrank are now being replaced by soft rank insigniashoulder boards.

In 1974 organdie veils were replaced by thepaper veil except for 'special' occasions such asAdmirals's inspection. A further step forwardoccured in 1984 with the complete withdrawal ofall veils.


Rank titles have also undergone changes. Thenursing officer of 1964 was afforded the followingrank equivalents:

Sub Lieutenant — SisterLieutenant Senior SisterLieutenantCommander Superintending

SisterCommander Matron

This nomenclature continued until December1979 when nursing officers relinquished thehospital terminology to assume male rank titles.Needless to say the sailor wasconfused . . . . 'Don't know whether to call youSir or Ma'am so I'll call you Sam'.

Perhaps the most welcome breakthroughcame on 1 October 1978 when all female officerswere granted equal pay with their malecounterparts. Another bastion broken down!

Postings have varied with the billets beingestablished and dis-established to fit manpowerrequirements. In January 1972 the nursingofficer billet in HMAS Harman was dis-established following the change from sickquarters to sick bay. This was followed in May1974 when the ANZUK Medical Centre inSingapore was closed thereby terminating anexcellent 'rabbits' posting for a RANNS officer.HMAS Nirimba gained a nursing officer in 1977following the retirement of a civilian nursingsister after 20 years of untiring support.

Care for RAN personnel in HMAS Stir/ingcommenced in 1978 when the modern healthfacility opened its doors for business. This areais expanding significantly with the increasingpresence of the Fleet in Western Australia.Regrettably, its neighbour at HMAS Leeuwinclosed in December 1984 thereby ending a 20year span of providing health care to juniorrecruits.

In February 1978 the office of the DirectorGeneral of Naval Health Services, including theMatron, RANNS. was transferred fromMelbourne to Canberra. The title of Matron waschanged to Director Nursing Services Navy witha further change in 1984 to Director NursingServices and Health Service Training, Navy.

Across the hill at Russell the Joint ServicesMedical Centre (now Joint Services HealthCentre) received its first RANNS officer in 1977and the billet is now shared on a two-yearTri-Service rotation.

In June 1981 the first nursing officer attendedthe RAN Staff College. Now five nursing officersare proud bearers of 'psc'.

Perhaps the most professionally rewardingposting ceased in December 1982 when the lastnursing officer left the Patrol Boat Base,Lombrum on Manus Island. This move ended an18 year association with the indigenous people

and PNGDF personnel working side by side withthe RANNS officers to care for the people ofManus Province.

The loss of these billets in the idyllic AdmiraltyIslands saw the last of long term overseaspostings for nursing officers. However,Operation Sea Surge was activated in July 1983as a three month exchange posting to the UnitedKingdom. Thus far two nursing officers haveparticipated in this programme. This posting isseen as an excellent public relations exercise forthe exchange of ideas and professionaldevelopment within the Health Services.

31 August 1984 was a highly significantmilestone in our history when the first malenursing officer joined the RAN. Presently bothmale nursing officers are serving in HMASCerberus as a welcome addition to the HealthServices team.

To the p resent . . . . November 1985 and theAustralian Defence Force Academy has an RANnursing officer as a member of the Tri-Servicehealth team preparing for the influx of cadets in1986.

Now the final words in this chapter of RANNShistory have been written. A signal wasdespatched on 7 June 1985 stating that:

The Naval Forces (Womens Services)Regulations have been repealed. . . . Thedesignation RANNS will be abolished. Formermembers of the RANNS will become membersof the Nursing Branch to be constituted byCNS determination. Former officers of theWRANS and RANNS will use the designationRAN:This new Nursing Branch will accommodate

both male and female members, and the Chief ofNaval Staff's determination of 23 August 1982will be revoked. Whilst current Nursing Branchand RANNS officers will continue to serve undertheir existing conditions of service, a set ofconditions of appointment has to be agreed andconfirmed for nursing officers entering the RANafter 7 June 1985.

As the nursing branch members assume widerroles and responsibilities within the RAN ourcolleagues of 21 years ago can be assured thatthe same high standard of professional care willbe carried forward for another 21 years . . . . andfurther.

The AuthorLietuentant Commander Liz Coles joined the

RANNS in 1975. Postings have included HMA ShipsCerberus and Penguin and 12 months at ManusIsland. She attended the Cumberland College otHealth Sciences in 1980 and this was followed by theRAN Staff Course 6 81 the next year. A two and onehalf years posting as Staff Officer Projects to DGNHSpreceded her present posting as Officer-m-Charge ofthe Medical School in HMAS Cerberus


THE MARY ROSE

EXCAVATION & RAISING OF HENRY VIII'S FLAGSHIP

a resume of Margaret Rule's book by Peter Trick

It was ordered that at daybreak the galleysshould advance upon the British whilst at anchorand, by firing at them with all fury, provoke theminto engagement and then retreating endeavourto draw them out of their hold towards the mainbattle. This order was executed with a great dealof intrepidity and the weather favoured ourattempt beyond our wishes for it was proven inthe morning a perfect calm. Our galleys had allthe advantages of working which we coulddesire to the great damage of the English who forwant of wind not being able to stir laid exposed toour cannon and being so much higher andbulkier than our galleys hardly a shot missedthem while they, with the help of oars, shifted atpleasure, and thereby avoided the danger of theenemy's artillery. Fortune favoured our fleet inthis manner for above an hour during which time,among other damages the English received, theMary Rose, one of their principal ships, was sunkby our cannon and of 5 or 600 men which were onboard only 5 and 30 escaped.

Immediately after the Mary Rose sank, navaland military commanders were faced with twotasks; firstly to explain why she had sunk andsecondly to recover the hull as quickly aspossible. The first task was relatively easy and theeye-witness account of Sir Peter Carew and LordRussell's letter to Sir William Paget, paved theway to a general verdict of 'indiscipline &mishandling', although Sir Walter Raleigh yearslater, attributed the disaster mainly to a designfault and the fact that there was too little freeboardbetween the lower gunport sills and the water.

The second task was delegated to theVenetians Peter de Andreas and Simon deMarine who received 40 marks for their efforts intrying to recover the sunken ship from the seabed.

Two empty ships each of 700 tons burthen, the

Jesus of Lubeck and Samson, were moored oneither side of the Mary Rose and secured to herby strong cables. At low water the cables wouldbe hauled tight on the capstans and as the tiderose the buoyant ships would ride with it, bringingthe Mary Rose off the bottom. In early AugustViscount Lisle reported that the Venetian salvorshad asked for six more days to drag the ship toshallower water. Somehow the main mast hadbeen torn out of the mast-step in the keelson andsilt had entered the vessel. Salvage attemptswere abandoned and apart from minor recoveriesof cannon and guns the ship was soon forgotten.

It was a chance exposure in 1836 that CharlesDeane rediscovered the wreck using the latest indiving apparatus with an open helmet. Whilstworking on another wreck, the Royal George, hewas invited by some local fishermen toinvestigate an area where their lines frequentlytangled in some seabed obstruction. He foundsome timbers protruding from the seabed and tohis delight a large bronze gun (3.4m long). Laterthat year he brought up three more guns reportingthat he had found them resting on 'some wreckcompletely buried in sand'.

During the intervening four years Deane hadrecovered wrought iron breech-loading guns,cast muzzle-loading brass guns, yew long bows,pottery, cloth, several skulls and a variety oftimber. He requested and received sixunserviceable 13in bombshells to enable him toblow a crater in the seabed to explore more of thewreck and from this recovered further guns.

The Search—1965-71In 1965 a team of well-trained and experienced

divers, but none of them trained archaeologists,were sent to discover and survey several well-documented historic wrecks in the Solent. Their


inexperience made them cautious and veryproperly they limited their initial programme todiving and recording what they saw. There wereno plans to excavate or to survey — just to lookand learn. Margaret Rule, eminent archaeologistwas invited to join the team and was desperatelykeen to see if it was possible to work underwaterand to record in a manner which would beacceptable to conventional land archaeologists.

When the Mary Rose team of divers dived onher they reported a mound of seaweed-festoonedwreckage 3m high and 60m long. Contemporaryaccounts of the sinking suggested that the MaryRose lay in shallow water within sight and soundof Southsea Castle. The King (Henry VIII) hadheard cries of her drowning sailors and it seemedunlikely that even on a calm day they would havecarried very much further than the edge of spitsound. In 1966 a chart of 1841 was found in theHydrographers' department of the Royal Navy.The chart was annotated with a red cross to markthe spot where the Deanes had discovered theMary Hose.

In 1967 a sonar trace was used over the site ofthe Mary Rose. The profiler revealed a W-shapedanomaly beneath the surface of the seabed andabove the anomaly a slight mound. On the basisof the evidence the Mary Rose Committeeobtained a lease to the seabed from the CrownEstate Commissioners in order to protect thesight from trespassers.

The aims too of the Committee were 'to find,excavate, raise and preserve for all time theremains of the Mary Rose as may be of historicalor archaeological interest.'

Contact at LastOn a bright sunny day, 1 May 1971, one of the

team of divers returned to the search vessel.There's wreckage, including planking sticking upfrom the mud', he muttered — the Mary Rose hadbeen found. Further dives were made and it wasreported large numbers of ends of timbersstraight in a row each approximately 12in x 18inand protruding only 2-3in from the seabed. To theleft of them is timber planking.'

Were the timbers ribs of the main hull below thewaterlme, or, as was wanted to believe, theframes of the bowcastle? Was the line of plankinginboard or outboard — was it a ceiling planking orouter hull planking? It would be weeks before thedivers understood what the timbers were — aTudor Carrack.

As work progressed it became clear that theability to excavate non-destructively underwaterwas limited by funds, resources and experienceand it was decided to concentrate efforts onclearing away the silts from the edges of eachtimber to expose a 'fair face'.

During 1972 it was planned to spend 68 days

on site with determination of exposing theheading and the angle of heel. On the starboardside a small section of frames and clinkerplanking was identified as the sterncastle.

The light overlapping planks and the framesand standards which supported them, wereeroded and fragile and with limited funds it wasagreed to back-fill the area with silt and leave forfurther investigation.

Over the following years the painstaking workcontinued with encouragement and funding bymany associates and the enthusiastic support ofthe Patron HRH Prince Charles who in 1975 divedto inspect the wreck for the first time

In 1978, a major trench across the hull from theport to the starboard side at the bow wasexcavated. The starboard junction of thebowcastle and the bulwark rail were examinedand it became clear that we had a coherentstructure with personal possessions and ship'sstores in situ exactly as they fell across the decks433 years earlier.

With the purchase of a diving vessel Sleipnerthe work accelerated, teams of divers exploringthe ever revealing wreck. The Sleipner had beenused in Sweden on the recovery of the famousWasa, and after being used as an anchor-layingship, sailed to Southampton to assist on the MaryRose project. During the remaining 229 days ofthe 1979 season diving occurred on 146 days and6858 dives were made from the decks ofSleipner. During that time approximately 600cubic metres of silt were removed from the site.Work concentrated on removing secondary post-tudor silts from the bow, stern and along thestarboard side of the ship.

Later in the season as new divers joined theteam, a video of methods of excavation andtechniques of survey used on the site was made.The video camera was probably the mostimportant single piece of equipment loaned to thetrust during excavation. The wide angle 85degrees lens registered 10-12 per cent betterthan the human eye and, in addition to being usedas a briefing tool for new divers andarchaeologists, it allowed essential recording ofthe ship's structure to continue as the excavationproceeded.

ConservationThe majority of objects recovered from the

Mary Rose are of wood or leather and right fromthe beginning it was recognised that largenumbers of waterlogged organic objects wouldpresent a major problem for the conservators. Itwas decided to tackle the task in close alliancewith Portsmouth City Museum where materialfrom Mary Rose had been conserved since 1971.Various studies using polyethylene glycols wereused on restoring wood and rope. Another team


Mary Rose — taken from the only contemporary painting in existence, known as the Anthony AnthonyRoll, a list of the Kings Ships completed in 1546.

Impression of excavation in 1981. Grid of steel poles divides the site into 3m squares, while airlifts areremoving silt. Hull of salvage vessel Sleipner visible top left. In reality this overview was never possibleunder water.(From a painting by John Adams printed in Rule's book The Mary Rose

Journal ol the Australian Naval Institute, Nov 85 — Page 45

THE EROSION PATTERN

1 After Ihe ship sank it lay on its Starboard side at 60' from thevertical and current-borne sill was deposited in the relativelycalm water within the hull The abrasive action of the silt-ladencurrent weakened the exposed hull by thinning the timbers, andscored a deep pit on the port side.

2.Continuedabrasion causedthe exposed hull

to collapse, fillingthe scour pits. The

now smoother flow continuedto deposit silt within theremaining hull structure

3 By the late seventeenth or early eighteenth centurey a hard layer of shelly clay was deposited over the site, sealing the tudor levelsAbove this, a mobile modern bed was layed This was removed by scour action from time to time and the 1836 discovery and 1971

re-discovery probably resulted from these periodic temporary exposures(Based on text and diagrams presented in Rules book The Mary Rose.)


led by Chris O'Shea tackled the task ofconserving wood, bronze, leather ceramics,textiles, lead and pewter.

The wrought and cast iron guns from the MaryRose have all been stabilized by heating them inan atmosphere of hydrogen and converting theoxidised iron to metallic iron during a reductionprocess. Although this process has beencriticised it has proved to be the only reliablemethod of preserving wrought iron from the site.

Early experiments to conserve waterloggedwooden objects using the acetone rosin processgave variable results and since 1979 most objectshave been treated by freeze-drying after soakingin a tank of polyethylene glycol to bulk the cells ofwood.

Into The '80sBy the end of 1981 the excavation was almost

complete. The ship lay revealed beneath a 3inchgrid of steel poles and two separate steelmanifolds carried low pressure air to take offpoints on the port and starboard side of the wreckto power a system of sixteen airlifts. Thearchaeologists still had a formidable task torecord and dismantle the brick-built galley andremove all ballast and stores from within the holdamidships, but this work was completed duringMay and June 1982 by a specially invited team ofvolunteers working day and night shifts.

On a visit to the US in January '81 MargaretRule met the only person who had heard of theMary Rose — a taxi driver who had seen anadvert for Damart thermal underwear and herecognised her as the "Thermal UnderwearLady".

(Shamedly the first knowledge I had of MaryRose was on a visit to Southsea Castle in 1982when the ranger there introduced me to the MaryRose exhibition area, I thought perhaps she was alocal filmstar, but after seeing the marvellouscollection of artefacts, photos and videoscreening, my enthusiasm in the Mary Rose storywas born. P.T.)

RecoveryThe final recovery of Mary Rose was broken up

into various phases.• Phase 1 —preparation: the removal of the

back-fill of silts which had accumulated insidethe ship over the winter months and theremoval of sandbags and terram sheetingwhich had been placed over the decks to limitcolonisation by fish and other marine life; theexcavation of four post pits was necessary sothat the legs of the underwater lifting framecould be correctly positioned in the seabed

• Phase 2 — an archaeological programme ofsurvey and excavation was needed to

complete the removal of the final deposits inthe hold and on the orlop deck and also tocomplete the survey of the structure.

• Phase 3 — installation of lifting equipment bypositioning an underwater lifting frame abovethe wreck in a pre-determined location.

• Phase 4 — tunnelling beneath the hull at ninepoints to pass man-made fibre strops beneaththe hull and bringing them up to hydraulictensioners on the underwater lifting frame.

• Phase 5 — internal bracing: the selection ofpositions for pads for the steel girders and theinstallation of the steel bracers.

• Phase 6 - - lifting to cradle: to lift theunderwater lifting frame with the hullsuspended beneath by nine strops using aship-borne crane, to be followed immediatelyby placing the Mary Rose, still suspended fromthe underwater lifting frame, on a prefabricatedsteel cradle on the seabed with water bagsbetween the hull and the cradle to provide acomfortable mattress.

• Phase 7 — the lift into air: the final lift of thecradle and the underwater lifting frame with theMary Rose suspended and supportedbetween the two onto a pontoon using a crane,and then the tow ashore to the Royal Navalbase in Portsmouth Dockyard.

When the structure was eventually brought toshore the ship had been placed in a wet dock. Iwas rather disappointed in 1983 seeing theremains of the Mary Rose, a pile of brokentimbers continually being sprayed by water in hersteel cradle — next to the majestic HMS Victory.After seeing the whole hull of Wasa in Sweden Irealised what an endless task the Trust have withthe Mary Rose.

In years to come it is proposed to reinstate thedecks, cabins, and companion ways that havebeen removed so laboriously underwater. It willbe necessary to keep the ship wet to preventmicro-biological decay and initially this will bedone by mist-spraying and chilled water.

A plan for the Tudor Ship museum close to thebeach at Eastney, Portsmouth has beenproposed. The centre point of the museum will bethe shiphall, but great care will have been taken tolink the exhibition galleries with views of the hulland the museum. This museum too will containlecture theatres, a cinema, conservationlaboratories and study facilities for visitingscholars to take in the historic and majectic MaryRose that will live again after its death in 1545.References:The Mary Rose by Margaret Rule

ISBN 085 1772552.

Any readers interested in joining the Mary Rose Societycontact:

Peter TRICK,12 Greenvale St.,Fisher, A.C.T.


CHANTIERS DUBIGEON (Australia) Pty. Ltd.50 MARGARET STREET, SYDNEY 2001

Phone (02) 295121 Telex AA 22532

Shipbuilding Division of ALSTHOM ATLANTIQUE


WASHINGTONNOTES

by Tom Fnedmann

'America bashing' has become a popular sportin many foreign countries. Thus, when the NewZealand Labor Party fought its 1984 generalelection campaign in part on a platform calling forlegislation banning nuclear armed and nuclearpowered ('nuclear') ships from New Zealand(read 'American ships') ports and calling for the'denuclearization' of the ANZUS alliance throughthe re-negotiation of the ANZUS treaty,Americans took little note of the situation. Historyhad shown that, once elected, governments incountries allied to America usually evaded orrepudiated party platforms that opposed theUnited States as being in the best interests of theirown countries.

The Labor Party won the New Zealandelections on July 14, 1984. But contrary toprecedent, the newly-designated prime minister,David Lange, immediately announced he wouldadhere to his party's nuclear platform. Thisposition was seen by the American governmentas a direct threat to its policy of refusing to confirmor deny the presence of nuclear weapons aboardits ships.

For six months the United States engaged inintensive negotiations with the Langegovernment seeking a way out of an impassewhich threatened the existence of one ofAmerica's most solid alliances, the ANZUS Pact.Frustrated by a lack of diplomatic progress, theReagan administration sought to join the issue onJanuary 21, 1985, by routinely requestingdocking privileges in New Zealand for theconventionally powered guided missile destroyerUSS Buchanan during planned ANZUSexercises. Standing by its nuclear non-confirmation policy, the American governmentrefused to respond to New Zealand's inquiries

regarding the munitions on board the Buchanan.New Zealand refused to admit the ship into itsterritorial waters.

Sir Wallace Rowling, New Zealand's newambassador to the United States, contests thisinterpretation of the events surrounding theBuchanan's proposed visit. The ambassadoremphasizes that New Zealand did not challengeAmerica's non-confirmation policy. Rather, theNew Zealand government has elected to decide ifa ship is capable of carrying nuclear armament ona ship-by-ship basis. For example, it is assumedthat if a ship is sufficiently sophisticated to benuclear powered, it will also be nuclear armed andwill thus not be permitted in New Zealand waters.Separate determinations will be made regardingconventionally powered ships.

The position of New Zealand should not havebeen a surprise, according to Sir Wallace, whobrings to his new position the added insight of aformer prime minister. Both National and LaborParty governments from 1969-1976 refused topermit nuclear powered vessels in New Zealandwaters. This was not a military policy question butrather stemmed from New Zealand's concernabout idemnification in the event of a nuclearaccident. As the situation developed, however, bythe time the idemnity question was settled theissue had evolved into the question of admittingnuclear weapons to New Zealand.

Washington reacted swiftly and forcefully towhat it views as one of the most seriouschallenges it has ever faced in the allianceUpcoming ANZUS exercises were cancelled aswas the annual meeting of ANZUS foreignministers, the most important date on thecalendar of the Australian and New Zealandforeign ministers. New Zealand officers will


probably not be replaced on a one-for-one basisas they leave US training schools. Militarycooperation is at a standstill or has beencancelled outright. Intelligence flowing to NewZealand under the provisions of the 1947 UKUSAIntelligence Agreement has been stemmed andthe entire agreement placed under review.ANZUS, as a trilateral pact, is in abeyance andNew Zealand is no longer considered as an allybut rather as a 'friend'

But most vexing — and most hurtful — is thatNew Zealand is seen to have breached theunwritten policy of the United States governmentthat placed our relations with the United Kingdomand the old dominions of Canada, Australia, andNew Zealand on a plane surpassed by no othercountries. Only these countries are cleared to see'top secret' information in military categoriescalled 'Combined Military Operations, Planningand Readiness1, 'US Order of Battle1, and 'MilitaryIntelligence'.

This unique alliance — this family — providedthe leverage for Prime Minister Clement Atlee tointercede with President Harry S. Truman duringthe Korean War to help prevent the use of atomicweapons. Only Australia's capital and anAustralian prime minister have lent their names toships of our navy. American support of the UnitedKingdom during the Falklands War — despite thecorrectness of the cause — came at a great costto us in international opinion in Latin America. ACanadian diplomat, when accepting thanks forhis country's assistance to Americans during theIran hostage crisis, reflected that his was a smallcountry with a small diplomatic service to whichthe United States gave frequent assistance. WhatCanada did, he said, was only a small repaymentfor the help the United States had given Canada.

Regarding ANZUS in particular, the Treaty isan easy one for all of the parties to live with.Instead of committing the principals to combat ifthe other was attacked, it calls for collaboration indeveloping the collective security of the powers toresist within the constitutional framework of eachparticipant. The cost of ANZUS for the UnitedStates is rather cheap. The nuclear umbrellaspread over the antipodes would have probablybeen extended whatever the case. Indeed, NewZealand argues that ANZUS is not and never hasbeen a nuclear alliance and thus Americannuclear protection is neither needed nor wanted.On the other hand, such protection has onlyrecently been rejected.

Australia and New Zealand have never askedfor nor received American aid under the Treaty.ANZAC forces patrol reaches of the southernPacific that America's post-Vietnam Pacific Fleetwould be prohibitively stretched to cover; they

speak as democracies for democracy to ThirdWorld nations with power and influence that ouroverwhelming size prohibits; they have supportedour geo-political goals in the South Pacific; sentparticipants to the Multinational Force in the Sinai;backed us in the United Nations on manycontentious issues, including Israel; and helpedcontain communism in Malaya and continue tomaintain a presence there.

But two points supersede all the others. First,the forces of Australia and New Zealand havefought and died with those of the United States inevery war America has engaged in during thiscentury. They were in Vietnam when our otherallies were only good for heaping scorn upon theUnited States. Second, ANZUS is an alliance oftruly free people with whom it was an honor for theUnited States to join. It is not a situation of analliance with a government which was'democratic' solely by the determination of a givenPresident of the United States in order to reach aparticular foreign policy goal as has so often beenthe case.

The United States is confronted with a toughpredicament. Any action against the NewZealand government will bring us into conflict witha people who are — and remain — closelyattached to the government and people of theUnited States. Statements by the Reaganadministration trying to separate our actionsagainst the New Zealand government and itspeople are as futile as similar attempts that weremade regarding the United States duringVietnam. The government of a democracyrepresents the people who freely placed it inoffice. The people of New Zealand freely electedtheir government knowing what its position onnuclear armaments would be.

The situation is further aggravated by coming ata time when communist adventurism in the SouthPacific, following the flag of a vastly expandedSoviet Pacific Fleet, appears to be increasingwhile the primary alliance we depend upon to helpus in that area is crumbling. Despite PrimeMinister Lange's warning to the Russians to standclear of the dispute between our two countries,Soviet propagandists are nevertheless exploitingthe problem to the fullest.

Finally, the American government is concernedhow certain political groups in countries likeAustralia, Japan, the United Kingdom, Greece,Denmark, and Spain perceive our responses toNew Zealand's actions.

One should, however, hesitate beforeconcluding that any actions taken in regard toNew Zealand will apply in all cases. Australia hasa large and vocal left-wing within the ruling LaborParty which forced Prime Minister Hawke to back


out of a previous commitment to permit MXmissile testing in the Tasman Sea earlier thisyear, an abrogation, Ambassador Rowling notes,that passed virtually without comment by theUnited States. Important American intelligencetacilities in Australia already appear to havehelped bring about a different response to anuclear weapons question with our other ANZUSally.

A nuclear exclusion from the United Kingdommay be determined less onerous than losing theservices of the Royal Navy in the defence of theNorth Atlantic. Access to facilities in Belgiummight be considered more important than giving a'no nukes pledge. Unfortunately for NewZealand, similar direct military relationships areminimal in number and importance.

There are indications that the citizens of NewZealand and their government are beginning tograsp the full ramifications of the breach with theUnited States. The recent loss of a local electionin Timaru, which had been a Labor stronghold for58 years, may have been due in part to theimportance New Zealanders attach to theirrelationship with the United States. Indeed, pollsshow support for ANZUS has risen from 61% to71% in the last year.

Recent reports show some new flexibility byPrime Minister Lange who no longer rules out inadvance, visits by ships that are 'nuclear capable'but only those deemed to be carrying nuclearweapons. The eventual solution, however, maybe a form of 'nuclear courtesy' of the type nowpracticed between the United States and Norway.

The Norwegians forbid nuclear weapons andships in their territory. They state their positionand expect their allies to adhere to it. No specificaction or judgment is taken in regard to thearmament of a specific aircraft or ship. Nochallenge is thus made to the American 'non-confirmation' policy. The Royal NorwegianGovernment does not take an affirmative positionin each individual case but relies on the discretionof its allies.

American officials are hesitant to discuss whatfurther steps against New Zealand arecontemplated if Prime Minister Lange followsthrough with his party's pledge to enact thenuclear ban into law. Agricultural preferences,supported by various administrations as a cost ofalliance, can now be considered dead. Americandairy surpluses could be used to drown NewZealand's economy in milk but it is not inAmerica's best interests to do so because othernations still allied with us are dependent upondairy exports. Agressive enforcement of GATTmay be mandated by Congress despite theadministration's desire to separate trade anddefense issues.

America's position as the West's leadingnuclear power has not been an easy one for thiscountry. Those who think like Mr Lange should bereminded that nuclear weapons were usedagainst Japan in order to save New Zealand andAustralian lives as well as American lives. Asampling of editorial opinions from Americannewspapers on August 7, 1945, makes it clearthat the horror and promise of nuclear power havebeen tandem problems for Americans from thebeginning. Perhaps America, whose governmentis responsive to the pressures of public opinion onthe question of nuclear armaments, is tired ofbeing considered more dangerous than nationslike the Soviet Union who rattle sabres andthreaten world peace, free of similar pressures.

It took a century and a half for the United Statesto set aside the admonition of its first President,George Washington, to 'steer clear of permanentalliances'. There are those in the United Stateswho now question whether or not our allies aremaintaining their share of joint defence burdens.It further appears that certain governments, likeNew Zealand's, ignore the meaning of 'alliance'.While these governments do not perceive anuclear threat to themselves, their ally, the UnitedStates, is threatened, and must face that threatalong with any conventional challenge. TheUnited States needs to know now, in peacetime,who it can rely upon and who will rely upon it intimes of crisis.

The United States cannot maintain two navies,one to call at ports that permit American nuclearships and one to call at ports that do not permitsuch calls. Countries ready to take our nuclearweapons during wartime may have to committhemselves to accept them in peacetime. TheUnited States should not bear the burden ofnuclear weapons deployment by itself.

There is a growing perception that many of our'allies' are not allies and that many of our allianceslack the basic requirement of mutuality of interest.Allies must work together in peace to deter war,work that is infinitely more difficult yet infinitelymore desirable than having to work together inwar to secure peace.

Winston Churchill once said to beware of theAmerican eagle. It can be pushed and proddedand make no move. But it would be wrong,Churchill continued, to believe that the eagle didnot feel the jabs nor understand the reasonsbehind them. New Zealand may be the one thatfinally prodded the eagle once too often.


CONTACT 12B 005 DEOR 13.9 KYDC 140 DEOS 16 KM

FRIEND SUBM LARGEOBERON ORION

6 THREAT7 COMBAT

3 CLASS 8 TORPEDO4 MARKS 9 AODFCT5 TACNAV

B 079 DEG" 16.2 KYD

for Submarin

JAMES CRAIG

A RESTORATION PROJECT OF THE SYDNEY MARITIMEMUSEUM

Moored at Birkenhead Point in what was oncethe old industrial harbourside of Sydney is thehistoric fleet of the Sydney Maritime Museum.Sydney Maritime Museum began twenty yearsago and since then has been a 'leader in theeffort to preserve our seafaring past for futuregenerations. The Museum has a superbcollection of maritime artefacts, models,artworks, photographs, and small boats as wellas Australia's largest collection of historic ships.Sydneysiders who travel across Iron CoveBridge will be familiar with Lady Hopetoun,Waratah and John Oxley. A recent addition to thefleet is famous wartime raider M.V. Krait.Although the property of the Australian WarMemorial, the Krait has been entrusted to thecare of Sydney Maritime Museum.

The Museum's biggest project is therestoration of the 1874 square rigger JamesCraig. The era of sail spanned the first vital

century of Australia's existence. It was only theexpertise of seafarers and the speed and safetyof their ships which made the settlement andexpansion of our young country possible. TheMuseum is restoring the James Craig to sailingcondition as a permanent reminder to us of thosedays.

The James Craig was a deep sea cargovessel like hundreds of others; her original namewas Clan MacLeod. She was a sturdy littlevessel and rounded Cape Horn 23 times in herfirst 26 years. Her first visit to Australia was in1879 when she delivered general cargo toBrisbane. In 1900 she was sold to J.J. Craig ofAuckland and 5 years later came the namechange. Like all vessels, James Craig wasnamed for a member of the owner's family. By1911 steamers had overtaken sail for economyand speed and James Craig went the way ofmany other beautiful windjammers. She was cutdown for a copra hulk.

ST. Waratah (left) and M.V. Krait Photo: courtesy Sydney Maritime Museum


She spent World War 1 in Port Morseby, butwith the end of the war she met unexpected goodfortune. Heavy losses to shipping meant new lifefor previously discarded ships, and the JamesCraig was bought by Henry Jones & CO. andtowed to Sydney where she was re-rigged andrefitted at Morts Dock Balmain. She went backinto the Trans-Tasman trade, but she was afterall nearly fifty years old and it wasn't long beforeage caught up with her.

Her last voyage was a poignant one. The crewwere friendly and the food was good. The menwho served on her all commented on her as aship that they felt was special. When she failed topass survey her Captain and crew felt realregret. With every sail set she was watched byhundreds of people in the Hobart Domain as shemade this last journey in the 1920s (last that isuntil her move for restoration almost 60 yearslater). She was again hulked and left to rot inlonely Recherche Bay in southwest Tasmania.

Realising the importance of restoring a sailing

ship for Sydney, Sydney Maritime Museumfound the James Craig in 1971 and began tosalvage her. The technical problemsencountered were massive, and it was not until1981 that the vessel was towed to SydneyHarbour. She now lies at Rozelle Bay; and thefinal stages of her restoration are underway. Torepair and rebuild the hull the James Craig willgo up onto a huge pontoon dock The ship on thedock will provide a tremendous spectacle forvisitors, and there will also be an exhibition areaand audio-visual to further explain the ship. TheJames Craig has received $1.5 million as aBicentennial grant. The total cost of the projecthowever, is $7 million. When complete, theJames Craig will be displayed in Darling Harbouras part of the Sydney Seaport fleet.

It is a big challenge, but a worthwhile one. By1988 Sydney will have a permanent reminder ofthose days when it was wind alone thatconnected us to the rest of the world.

James Craig (left) in New Harbour in the 1890s Photo: courtesy Sydney Maritime Museum


JOHN BASTOCKSAILOR AND ARTIST

by Alan Zammit

When one enters the wardroom of the FFGHMAS Adelaide, the first object to catch one'seye is a fine painting of the cruiser Adelaide in1944 in her wartime camouflage. Similarly, thewardroom of FFG Sydney displays a strikingpicture of HMAS Sydney, famous vanquisher ofthe German raider Emden in World War I. Ournew Canberra also has an outstanding paintingof the 10 000 ton County Class cruiser Canberrain her pre-war paint. All these paintings weredone by John Bastock and presented by him asgifts to each of the new FFGs.

John has drawn and painted ships and marinesubjects since his schooldays. Having joined theRAN as a boy, he was trained in HMAS Tingira,and later served in some of the well-known shipsof the earlier RAN.

His first years at sea were too crowded withactivity to devote any time to painting. Theseincluded service in HMAS Brisbane on the ChinaStation and in HMAS Melbourne in theMediterranean. Amongst the young officersserving in Melbourne during her Mediterraneancommission were several whose names were tomake history in the annals of the RAN. Theseincluded Lieutenant (later Vice Admiral Sir John)Collins, the ship's gunnery officer; Lieutenant(later Captain) Dechaineux, who, as Captain ofHMAS Australia lost his life when his ship wasattacked by a Japanese kamikaze aircraft atLeyte Gulf on 21 October 1944; Midshipman(later Lt. Commander) R.W. Rankin who wentdown while in command of HMAS Yarra as thatship fought valiantly against overwhelmingJapanese odds, south of Java on 4 March 1942;and Midshipman (later Rear Admiral) G.G.O.Gatacre — first Captain of HMAS Me/bourne.

Having served the final commission in HMASSydney John, with most of the old Ship'sCompany sailed in SS Be/tana to commissionHMAS Canberra at Clydebank, Scotland. On theship's voyage to Australia, via the Cape of GoodHope, John found time in the dog-watches totake up painting again. He completed manypictures of the Canberra, some on art board,others on black velvet, depicting the vessel at

night on a moonlit sea, with all lights ablaze. Theart board paintings were sold to his shipmates forabout 2/6d (25c) and those on velvet for about5/- (50c). John's supreme effort during thisperiod was a large painting of the ship oncanvas, suitably framed, and signed by theCaptain (Captain Massey, RN) and his seniorofficers. The picture was raffled amongst theShip's Company and netted John about 15pounds ($30.00) profit. The asking price for asimilar painting today would be in the $700-800range! A ship painting sometimes takes weeks ofresearch and concentrated work to complete,which is what makes it so valuable.

John qualified at Cerberus as a torpedo-gunner's mate (his was the first class of TGMsundertaken at Cerberus as previously thiscourse, for the highest torpedo rating attainableon the lower deck, involved a posting to the UK).Following further service at sea, John sustainedan affliction which culminated in blindness in oneeye and he was discharged from the Service asbelow the required physical standard.Fortunately, over the years the condition partlyimproved to such an extent that he was able toresume painting.

Since then he has painted many subjects andhas executed hundreds of drawings, diagramsand paintings of ships and written and illustratedmany articles on both ships and maritimesubjects. His book Australia's Ships of War (nowout of print but hopefully to be revised andupdated in the near future) is well known as awork of naval reference. Signed editions have

The Author

Alan Zammit served in the canteen staff of theAustralia and Sydney between 1945 and 1955 and is acommitteeman of the HMAS Australia VeteransAssociation. He has written naval historical articles formany publications including newspapers and NavyNews, Naval Historical Review, Reveille, White Ensignand Chopsticks the Journal of the Korean and SouthEast Asia Forces Association.


— Nov '85, Journal of the Australian Naval Institute

become a much-sought-after collector's item,and copies, when available, fetch a high price.

He is a recognised authority on the Sail Steamera, and in this regard he has in publication anew book, packed with the results of hisresearch on the Australia Station period andillustrated with photographs, drawings, diagramsand a series of his paintings of the flagshipsinvolved. The book when published will becomea valuable reference work on a period ofAustralia's naval history of which little authenticinformation has ever been published.

John laments the fact that many locallyproduced books contain misnamed photographsof ships on the Australia Station. His new bookwill include a correctly named picture of everyvessel which served on the station — the resultsof study and research extending over a quarterof a century.

The keynote of John's work is correctness ofdetail — perspective must be spot-on, funnelsand masts must have just the correct angle, gunsmust look as though they will not collapse whenfired, seaboats must be turned out, properlygriped, ready to lower, correct pattern anchorsare to be carried, bollards, fairleads and a host ofother such details must be included, and thedetails must be correct for the period depicted.

John believes that ships, like people, have an

ideal angle from which they should be seen, andso he likes his ships in this ideal position, reallylooking as though they are having their portraitspainted!

All these points — all his striving for accuracy,is based not only upon study and research, butmost importantly, upon the knowledge andactual experience gained in years of service atsea.

As well as being an outstanding naval artistand writer, John Bastock's collection of navalphotographs is of international significance. Thiscollection was obtained the hard way, by over 60years of taking photographs himself, andexchanging them with naval photographcollectors throughout the world. Hardly a weekgoes by without John being asked to iden"" ordate a ship photograph, or give some %-. iceabout the vessel concerned

I first met John when he came on board theAustralia in 1946 to do some research for anarticle he was writing for a magazine. I wasamazed then at his knowledge of the vessel, andI doubt whether there is anyone who is moreknowledgeable on ships of the RAN and BritishCommonwealth navies than John Bastock. In away, he is as expert in drawing and paintingnaval subjects as Norman Lindsay was inpainting nudes!

Presentation to FFG HMAS Sydney's first CO, CMDR P Kable in the ship's Wardroom May 1984.Shown, left to right, LCDR O Kelly, John Bastock, LEUT S Woolrych, SBLT C Scott, LCDR P DeGraffand CMDR R Kable.Photograph courtesy Command Photographic Centre Sydney


27navies sail.the seven seas with Signaal

I h e tamihar Signaal dome onwarships is a symbol of u l t i m a t eweapon control Signaal, a leaderin radar and control systems formi l i ta ry and civil applicationsaround the world, is a member ofthe Philips international group ofcompanies

Suppliers to 27 naviesincluding the RoyarAus t r a l i an

Navy and others in the Pacificregion, Signaal mainta ins anindustrial presence in Australia atthe Defence Electronic-, Facility atPhilips Mwirebank plant in N.S.W.

Signaal and Philips are ideallyplaced to service Australia's futuredefence needs with systemsmeeting the most stringentoperational requirements and

m-country facilities providingAustra l ian Industry Participationand on-going support in line withgovernment policy

©SIGNAALPhilips Defence Systems1 S Blue Street, North Sydney, 2060Phonc(02)9220IHI

DefenceSystems PHILIPS


SOLDIER SAILORS -SOLDIERS

SAILOR

AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRE FEDERATION MARITIMEDEFENCE OF TASMANIA AND WESTERN AUSTRALIA

by Lieutenant JH Straczek RAN

Since the arrival of the first white settlers inAustralia the responsibility for the defence of thecolonies was vested in the Royal Navy. TheBritish troops stationed in Australia were thereprimarily to provide for the internal security of thenew colony. This situation remained virtuallyunchanged until the outbreak of the CrimeanWar when troops were withdrawn and sentelsewhere. Shortly after this, further troops werewithdrawn and sent to New Zealand. Theseevents, coupled with the general reduction in thenumber of British troops in Australia and theapparent weakness of the Royal Navy inAustralian waters, caused a general feeling ofinsecurity amongst the colonists. As aconsequence of this the colonies began toassume a greater responsibility for their defence.

In the main this was done through theestablishing of military units, both regular andmilitia, as well as the construction of fortificationsto defend the approaches of ports and harbours.Most of the colonies also established andmaintained their own naval forces to assist in thedefending of their ports and harbours. Thecolonies which did not establish naval forceswere Tasmania and Western Australia. Each ofthese colonies did however have, as a part oftheir Defence Forces, a unit which had a navalcharacter about it. These units were theTasmanian Torpedo Corps' and the FremantleNaval Artillery. Both units had what at best couldbe described as unimpressive histories;however, they do form part of our naval andmilitary heritage and as such their stories shouldbe told.Tasmanian Torpedo Corps

The origins of the Tasmanian Torpedo Corpscan be traced back to 1878 when Sir W. Jervoisput forward his proposals for the defences of

Hobart and Launceston. No formalised navalforces were envisaged by Sir W. Jervois as theoverall scope of the proposed scheme was thatthe defences of Hobart and Launceston were tobe sufficient to defend these towns againstattacks by unarmoured cruisers or privateers.The scheme basically consisted of a series ofgun batteries and fortifications with mines laid inthe Tamar and Derwent rivers. Although theJervois recommendations had been accepted,no action had been taken in the area of torpedodefences by the time the Royal Commission intothe Local Forces of Tasmania presented itsreport on 15 September 1882. In their report theCommissioners recommended theestablishment of an engineer unit to operate thetorpedo defences as well as supporting ColonelP. Scratchley's suggestion that a Second ClassTorpedo Boat be purchased to assist indefending Hobart. The recommendations of thisreport were accepted and a 53 man EngineerCorps was established at Hobart. TheTasmanian defence Budget for 1883 alsoincluded an initial amount of £150 for a SecondClass Torpedo Boat and E202.1.0 for thepurchase, and conversion to a powder hulk, ofthe yacht Enchantress. By December 1883 thenewly formed Corps was in a position to carry outits first mining exercise. On the morning of 25

The Author

Lieutenant Joe Straczek joined the RAN in 1971 as aJunior Recruit and commissioned as a MidshipmanSLSU in 1977. His postings have taken him along theeastern seaboard from Lonsdale to Cairns andincluded a short period even further north in PortMorseby Presently he is serving in HMAS Waterhen.One of his major interests is maritime history and heholds the office of Treasurer of the Naval HistoricalSociety.


December the Torpedo Corps mustered withtheir mines and awaited the arrival of thesteamer Pinafore, which had been chartered totransport the mines and the soldiers to where themines were to be laid. Once the steamer arrivedthe Torpedo Corps prepared to embark with theirmines. Unfortunately, when the master of thePinafore realised what his cargo was heimmediately slipped and sailed leaving thesoldiers and the mines behind on the wharf. Theservices of the paddle steamer Kangaroo wereeventually obtained and this enabled theexercise to continue. The Kangaroo however,proved to be totally unsuited for the role of laying

out and picking up mines. As a result of this,Captain E.M.T. Boddam, CommandantTasmanian Engineers, recommended that thesteamer Pearl be purchased and converted to amining vessel. These recommendations werenot implemented; however the Pearl wasregularly chartered for mine-laying exercises.

On 1 May 1884 the Second Class TorpedoBoat ordered from Thornycroft's of Chiswickarrived. After being off-loaded from themerchantship Abington the boat was towed tothe shipyards of John Lucas at Battery Point,where her machinery and propeller were fitted.Some minor repairs were also carried out at this

TASMANIAN TORPEDO BOAT

Photograph courtesy author

TB191 TECHNICAL DETAILS

Class:Builder:Church Wharf ChiswickYard No:Launched:Completed:Length:Beam:Draught:Displacement:Horsepower:

Second Class Torpedo Boat Speed:Messrs Thornycroft and Co. Armament

1911883188463 feet7 feet 6 inches3 feet aft; 1 foot fwd12 tons150 HP at full speed Cost:

17.21k max; 8k economicalOriginally carried onespare torpedo.Replaced in 1887 withdropping gear for 14inch Whiteheadtorpedos (one on eachside) and one 1 inch twobarrel Nordenfeltmachine gun.£4524


time. Once this work was completed TB 191 (shewas never named but carried her builder'snumber throughout her career) ran her first trials.These trials were conducted under thesupervision of two engineering officers fromHMS Nelson. On completion of the trials bothofficers expressed their satisfaction with thevessel and her performance.

Whilst TB 191 was being readied for servicethe Torpedo Corps continued to carry outminelaying exercises and drills. In November1884 the Torpedo Corps, using the steamerPearl laid an exercise mine field of some 16electro-contact mines. Some of these mineswere later exploded and the remainder wererecovered in January 1885. Once TB 191 joinedthe Torpedo Corps she proved to be a mostvaluable asset to the Tasmanian DefenceForces. So much so, that Colonel W.V. Legge,Commandant of the Tasmanian Defence Forces,recommended that a second vessel be orderedand specialist personnel be enlisted to maintainand operate the boats. Neither of theserecommendations was implemented. During1885 a Nordenfelt Machine Gun and Whiteheadtorpedo equipment were ordered for the boat.

1886 saw a reorganisation of the TasmanianDefence Forces and an increase in theauthorised establishment of the Torpedo Corpsto 75. New uniform regulations were gazetted on23 February 1886 and the Corps paraded inthese uniforms for the first time on 9 December1886.

The Whitehead torpedo equipment andNordenfelt machine gun ordered for the torpedoboat arrived in 1887 and was fitted. The fitting ofthe dropping gear for the Whitehead torpedoesnecessitated the removal of the spar torpedo andthe port funnel, the starboard funnel also havingto be moved further forward. The Nordenfelt waspositioned near the conning tower where thehelmsman sat.

A lack of finances coupled with the difficulty offinding a proficient crew to operate the torpedoboat saw it being used less and less. During1894, TB 191 was paid off and laid up in hershed. She was reactivated the following year;unfortunately the collapse of part of the slipwaywith the boat on it meant that some fairlyextensive repairs had to be made to the boat.Whilst this was occuring the role of theTasmanian Engineers was also changing fromthat of submarine mining to general fieldcraft. By1900 the decision had been taken to dispose ofthe torpedo boat and thus sever one of thelasting remaining links between the Engineersand their former mining role. After Federation,the Tasmanian Engineers became part of theMilitary Forces of the Commonwealth and76797, which had become a unit of the

Commonwealth Naval Forces, was transferredto South Australia.Fremantle Naval Artillery

Western Australia was the only colony whichdid not operate warships of its own as part of itsdefence forces. The main reasons for this werethe cost of establishing and maintaining navalforces and the fact that Western Australia wasnot a self-governing colony, and as such theColonial Naval Defence Act of 1865 was notapplicable to her. By the time Western Australiadid become a self-governing colony, thegovernment had ratified the Naval Agreement of1887 and was paying a contribution towards thecost of maintaining the Australian AuxiliarySquadron and could not afford the additionalcosts of naval forces.

The establishment of military forces was adifferent matter as almost any colony could raisetheir own military forces. In Western Australia theestablishment of military forces was governed bythe Western Australian Volunteer ForceOrdinances of 1861. These ordinances laiddown the method and general rules by whichvolunteer units could be raised and governed.Two of the more interesting sections of this actallowed for units to elect their own officers andmake their own rules and regulations for usewhen not on active service.

Under the Volunteer Ordinances the formationof a Volunteer Unit was not recognised until theWestern Australian Military Council was satisfiedthat a sufficient number of personnel wereenrolled and that a satisfactory standard of drillhad been reached. Once the formation of a unithad been gazetted, that unit was eligible toreceive government assistance. This assistancewas mainly in the form of a provision of arms andcertain items of uniform. On 11 February 1879notice of the formation of one such unit waspublished in the Western Australian GovernmentGazette:

Colonial Secretary's OfficePerth, 10th February 1879

His Excellency the Governor has beenpleased to approve the formation of a NavalVolunteer Force at Fremantle under thedesignation of 'Fremantle Naval Volunteers'and of the following gentleman officiating inthe capacity stated opposite his name pendingthe result of the examination to be held beforea Military Board assembled under theGovernment Notification of 20th April 1875.

George A. Forsyth, Esquire, Lieut,Commanding

By His Excellency's CommandROGER TUCKF GOLDSWORTHY

Colonial Secretary

Journal ol the Australian Naval Institute, Nov 85 — Page 61

As the founding members of this unit were allex-Royal Navy personnel, the rank structure,uniforms and drill, even to the extent of usingSnider Sea-Service rifles, were all naval incharacter Enlistment into the Fremantle NavalArtillery was also restricted to ex-Royal Navypersonnel or merchant seamen of goodcharacter.

The Fremantle Naval Volunteers was a halfbattery established to provide for the defences ofFremantle harbour. To achieve this function theFremantle Naval Artillery was equipped with two6pr brass field guns. These guns were reputedlycast in 1720 and had seen service in thePeninsular Campaign. Unfortunately, there wereneither wagons nor limbers held for these gunsand so their mobility was greatly restricted. Infact there is only one recorded occasion onwhich they attended a Volunteer Camp and thatwas at Albion in 1884. During 1887, theCommandant of the Western Australia VolunteerForces described these guns as totally obsoleteand recommended their replacement. In 1889they were replaced by two 9pr RML guns,complete with limbers and spare equipment.

Being a part-time unit, the Fremantle NavalArtillery had no formal barracks area. Howeverthey had the use of a number of building at theFremantle Immigration Depot. These buidingswere used as a gun shed, armoury andbandroom.

During 1882 concern was being expressed asto the effectiveness of some of the units withinthe Western Australian Volunteer Forces. One ofthe units about which concern was beingexpressed was the Fremantle Naval Artillery.The reasons for this were firstly due to the moreliberal sections of the Western AustralianVolunteer Force Ordinances and secondly dueto the declining numbers of personnel enlistingand attending parades. This decline was due tothe requirement that all personnel enlisting in theFremantle Naval Artillery be either ex-RoyalNaval personnel or merchant seamen of goodcharacter. The problems being experienced bythe Fremantle Naval Artillery came to a head on16 December 1884 when Lieutenant Forsythwas relieved of his command and ordered tohand over to Lieutenant F. Wemyss, an armyofficer.

Some time after assuming command of theNaval Artillery, Lieutenant Wemyss submitted areport to the Commandant of the WesternAustralian Volunteer Force recommending thatthe Naval Artillery be disbanded and restructuredalong lines similar to that of the Perth VolunteerArtillery. These recommendations wereaccepted by the Commandant and on 20

December 1888 the following General Order waspublished in the Western Australian GovernmentGazette:

GENERAL ORDER

1. His Excellency the Governor andCommander-ln-Chief has been pleased tosanction the following changes in respect ofthe Fremantle Naval Artillery:(a) The title of the Corps to be FremantleArtillery.(b) The uniform to be similar to that of thePerth Artillery except that the letters on theshoulder straps of the Non-CommissionedOfficers and men will be FAV.2. The above alterations do not in any wayaffect the legal constitution of the Corps, northe enrolment of the present number.3. Petty Officers will be given equivalent armyranks to what they now hold counting from thedate of their original appointment.

By CommandW.G. PHILLIMORE

Lieut-ColonelCommandant Volunteer Forces

Head Quarters Perth18 December 1888Though this order spelt the end of the

Fremantle Naval Volunteers the unit soldiered onfirstly under the designation Fremantle ArtilleryVolunteers and then as No. 2 Battery FieldArtillery, until it, like the Tasmanian TorpedoCorps, was absorbed into the Commonwealthdefence organisation after Federation.

Notes

1 The unit usually referred to as the Tasmanian TorpedoCorps was actually the Tasmanian Engineers. One of themajor functions of army engineers in the 19th Century wasdefensive submarine mining.

2 The Fremantle Naval Artillery was called by a number ofdifferent names in government papers The unit was mostfrequently referred to as the Fremantle Naval Artillery,however Fremantle Naval Volunteers and Naval Brigadewere also commonly used

References

Tasmanian Parliamentary papersTasmanian Government GazetteWestern Australian Parliamentary PapersWestern Australian Government GazetteGillett, Ross Australia's Colonial Navies, Naval HistoricalSociety of Australia. 1982Wieck, Geo F. The Volunteer Movement in WesternAustralia 1861-1903. Paterson Brokensha Ply Ltd (No Date)

Page 62 — Nov 85, Journal of the Australian Naval Institute

A LINK WITH THE PASTby VIC JEFFERY — Navy Public Relations Officer, Western Australia

Just a few metres offshore at the northern endof Jervoise Bay in Cockburn Sound, WesternAustralia lie the remains of a forgotten link inAustralia naval history. The former RAN tug andunarmed patrol vessel ALACRITY was drivenashore in Jervoise Bay 54 years ago during afierce gale.

ALACRITY was the last link with the proposedill-fated Henderson Naval Base on whichconstruction ceased with the outbreak of WorldWar 1. Construction had commenced in 1911and gradually ground to a standstill after fourmillion pounds had been spent on the project.The Department of Naval Constructionpurchased the 353 ton ALACRITY from theMelbourne firm of Howard Smith & Co in 1911and despatched the vessel to Western Australiato be used for construction works on the fledglingbase. It seems the Navy was content to retainthe name ALACRITY, being an apt name for atug and secondly because there had been sixRN predecessors carrying that name, the first in1806.

The tug had originally been built at Havre,France in 1893 and named after the famousFrench Admiral Jean Bart. As was the case withmany early steamers she was ngged as a ketchto extend her range. The builders, the SocieteAnonyme Forges et Chartiers de laMediterranee, installed two 122 nominal h.p.triple-expansion engines into her steel hull alongwith twin screws. Owners of the tug, the DunkirkChamber of Commerce employed it on the riverSeine and other rivers in Northern France untilher sale, in 1902, to Howard Smith of Melbournewho put her to work in that port. With theoutbreak of World War 1 ALACRITY was used asan unarmed patrol and boarding inspectionvessel with a secondary role as a minesweeper.It operated in Gage Roads and outside RottnestIsland in the approaches to the Port ofFremantle. After the war, ALACRITY had thehonour of conveying the famous British Admiral,the former First Sea Lord, Earl Jellicoe aroundCockburn Sound on his inspection of theproposed Henderson naval Base in 1919 as part

RAN Tug Alacrity Photo: V Jeffery Collection


of his report on the Naval defence of Australia.Sadly, however, events leading up to the 1921Washington Naval Conference saw theabandonment of the project. On December 16,1925 the ALACRITY was sold by auction to A.E.Tilley of Fremantle who later sold her to themachinery and metal merchant J.E. Hall in April1931.

ALACRITY was moored on desolate JervoiseBay for stripping before being broken up forscrap. Before stripping could commence a fiercegale caused the old workhorse to break adriftfrom her moorings and end up stranded on thebeach where her remains lie today. Her engineswere removed and the vessel was stripped of alluseful fittings before beinp abandoned. Fornearly 40 years the old tug lay there, hersilhouette changing li'tle until the mid 1970swhen a channel was dug to float the oil rig OceanEndeavour from its construction site in JervoiseBay to the sea. The rusting old tug was suddenlyleft 100 metres off-shore by the dredging and

deteriorated rapidly to a point where only a fewjagged pieces of metal protruded above thewaves, indicating its position. ALACRITY broke-up quickly around the time the fleet supportfacility HMAS STIRLING commissioned in 1978.It was almost as if after waiting despairingly formore than half a century for a Naval base to becompleted in Cockburn Sound the old ALAC-RITY was content to finally slip below the waveswhen this happened. However, her spirit couldwell live on in the HMAS STIRLING-based RANmedium tug TAMMAR. This vessel, named afterthe nocturnal member of the wallaby familyfound in large numbers on Garden Island inWestern Australia, was constructed byAustralian Shipbuilding Industries on the shoresof Jervoise Bay, only several kilometres fromwhere the ALACRITY'S remains lie. TAMMARcame into service on 10 March 1984 and was thefirst naval vessel to be built in W.A. since WorldWar 11.

The wreck of Alacrity, Jervoise Bay 1964 Photo: V Jeffery Co/lection


OF SHIPS AND THE SEA

KRUZENSHTERN (ex PADUA)

The Bicentennial celebrations in 1988 willinclude a gathering of wind-driven ships not seenin this hemisphere since the late 1930s: not thegrand gatherings of the working grain ships, butmore the latter day Tall Ships, vessels devotedto preserving sail training and basic seaman'sskills in this high-tech era. Amongst the fleetexpected to visit is the big Russian four-mastedsteel barque Kruzenshtern. Even more excitingis the expectation that she will visit at least oneSouth Australian port, probably Port Lincoln atthe mouth of the Spencer's Gulf, on her passageto Hobart and Sydney. Interestingly enough, Ican find no record of this vessel, in either of hertwo names, ever calling at an Australian eastcoast port. It appears that South Australia wasthe only state she ever visited in 1934 and 1935,but I could be wrong. To appreciate that the visitof a real wind-driven ship of this size will behistory in the making, it is necessary to givesome background details of a German shipowner, the Flying P Line and Padua herself.

The 'Flying P Line' came into being at thebeginning of the 1870s when Herr F. Laeisz ofHamburg bought the iron full-rigged shipPolynesia and the iron barque F/ottbeck (laterProfessor). Over the years that followed his fleetincreased and challenged the French shipownerAnt Dom et Fils on the South American nitratetrade. Except for one vessel (Henrietta Venn)every one of Laeisz' vessels had a namebeginning with the letter 'P'. Hence the 'Flying PLine'.

Concentrating solely on the nitrate trade,Laeisz' ships were indeed clippers in the truesense of the word, providing quick, safe andconsistent voyages and service to hiscustomers. Many years of steady service werebrought to an end when his entire fleet was lostduring World War 1, being either captured orseized as war reparation. At that time his fleetconsisted of:• Ponape (ex Regina Elenis) — captured by the

British in 1914 and passed to the short-livedshipping firm of J. Bell and Co. and renamedBellhouse. Later bought by Hugo Lundgvist ofMarieham who allowed the name Ponape tobe brought back into use. In 1929 she was

bought by Gustaf Erikson and served him welluntil broken up in 1936.Pelikan — also acquired by J. Bell and Co.,renamed Be/lco but broken up in about 1925.Parma (ex Arrow) — allocated to the Britishgovernment as war reparation. Re-purchasedby Laeisz in the early 1920s and later bought,in partnership, by Captain Rueben de Clouz,Gustaff Erikson, Alan Villiers and AlgoJohansen.Peiho (ex Argo, ex Brynymor) - - alsoallocated to the British government and re-purchased by Laeisz in the early 1920s.Potosi —passed to the French government,thence to Italy and eventually to Chileanowners. Renamed Flora she was finallyabandoned and scuttled in the South Atlanticin September 1930 after a fire broke out in hercargo of coke and coal.Pinnas (ex Fitzjames) - - passed to theFrench government and repurchased byLaeisz in the early 1920s. Abandoned in theSouth Atlantic on 27 April 1929, after beingdismasted in a violent storm.Passat — was also acquired by the Frenchand re-purchased by Laeisz. Sold to GustafErikson in 1929 he kept her in service until1951. Passat is preserved at Travemunde,Germany.Perim (ex Radiant) — passed to the Italiangovernment as war reparation.Pamir — passed to the Italians and laterpurchased by Laeisz. In 1931 she was sold toGustaf Erikson and re-sold to German ownersin 1951. Regrettably, Pamir was lost at sea in1957.Peking — passed to the Italians but was laterbought by the British government andremaned Arethusa for use as a stationarytraining ship in the Medway.Pirna (ex Osorno, ex Beethoven) — also wentto the Italians, renamed Pinus.Pommern (ex Mneme) — became theproperty of the Greek government but sold toGustaf Erikson in 1922. She is preserved atthe Alands Sjofartsmuseum at Mariehamn.Penang (ex Albert Rickmers) — taken overby the ship-owner John Nurminen Danzig.


Bought by Gustaf Erikson in 1923 she wasposted missing in 1940 whilst on passagefrom Port Lincoln to Cork.By 1922 Herr Laeisz was operating six wind-

driven vessels and was competing, yet again,with Ant Dom et Fils on the lucrative SouthAmerican nitrate trade. To show his faith in windand ships he ordered two four-masted steelbarques, Priwall and Padua, launched in 1918and 1926 respectively.

Built by J.C. Techlenborg of Wesermunde,Padua was launched on 24 June 1926 and issaid to have been the last steel four-mastedbarque build as a merchant vessel. Under thecommand of Captain B R. Petersen (who hadonce commanded Preussen she sailed on hermaiden voyage to South America for nitrate on30 August 1926. A tribute to her builder, the firstthree voyages showed tha Padua had fine,consistent sailing qualities. Recorded by BasilLubbock in The Nitrate Clippers her times were:• Hamburg to Talcahuano 87 days• Taltal to Delfzijl 94 days• Hamburg to Talcahuano 82 days• Iquique to Hamburg 87 days• Hamburg to Talcahuano 76 days• Mejillones to Terneuzen 72 days

Although she was employed mainly in thenitrate trade, both Padua and her sistershipPriwall were employed in the South Australianwheat trade for the 1934 and 1935 seasons. Inthe 1934 grain race Padua sailed to her ordersport in 109 days as against the winner, Passat.

106 days. In the 1935 race she sailed home in100 days with Priwall winning in 91 days. Ofinterest is the fact that both Padua and Priwallreturned the best times for a passage toAustralia in ballast. Both vessels departed fromHamburg on 31 October 1933 arriving at PortBroughton and Port Victoria (respectively) on 6January 1934. Elapsed time for both vessels was67 days.

In 1945 Padua was forfeited to the Russiansas war reparation. Extensively refitted, with theaddition of auxiliary engines and modernequipment, she was renamed Kruzenshtern afterthe Admiral and Hydrographer of the 18thcentury. A regular participant in the Tall Shipraces, the barque is operated as a sail trainingvessel by the Travel Fleet of Riga, WesternDivision of Training Vessels, USSR Ministry ofFisheries.Relevant statistics:LengthBeamDraftTonnages

Sail areaCadetsPresent Complement

376 feet46 feet22 feet 6 inches2 678 registered, later 3 0644 800 deadweight36 500 sq ft, later 39 35440 (as built)24 officers71 crew

175 cadetsRobin Pennock

ANSWERS TO AUGUST CROSSWORD

0 U T H E R N C R 0 5 S

E Y N E L L ft HH E H D E

HH o H o HHHHHH H Imm si HBP HHHEHflH BI H£ ft s c o Y NBH'i mi mm HHHHIBIB B H H R H H H H zHHHHHHK i ft H ft H Hc H u c ft HH c HHHH Ko • K HHH T i G EL H I m m m mfl HHHHHHc H ft R o Nc H i N ft H P ft HHHHI

H ft N 0 0 RIBft


BOOKREVIEWS

CAMERA AT SEA 1939-1945. 192 pp, $43.50. THEPACIFIC WAR — As seen by USN photographersduring World War 11. 208 pp,$44.95. Both bookspublished by Conway Maritime Press.

Much has been written about the war at sea between1939-1945 but few books are dedicated to thepresentation of the photographic records of thisconflict. At last the Conway Maritime Press hasproduced two excellent books on the subject, Cameraat Sea 1939-1945 and The Pacific War.

The first, Camera at Sea 1939-45 focused on themassive store of unpublished or rarely-seenphotographs taken of the war at sea. It touches onalmost every aspect of the war with most graphic andtelling photography. The book features 254 black andwhite and 23 colour photographs and is divided intoeight sections, dealing separately with Warships,Weapons and Equipment, Personnel, Navies in Exile,Naval Air Power, Operations and Victory. Each of the277 photographs featured is comprehensivelycaptioned by one of nine internationally known navalauthorities, David Brown, Aldo Franccaroli, Eugene M.Kolesnik, Jaques Mordal. Anthony Preston, AlanRaven, Hone Roberts, Lawrence Sowinski andAnthony Watts.

Just a few of the excellent photographs included are:• Japanese sailors saluting their flag as it is lowered on

the flight deck of the severely-listing Zuikaku offCape Engano after the Battle of Leyte Gulf;

• the battle-scarred HMS Exeter returning to a hero'swelcome at Devonport after the Battle of the RiverPlate;

• German sailors sunbaking on the quarterdeck of aminesweeper off the Dago and Osel Islands in 1941;

• superb colour shot of Divisions on the massiveforecastle of the battleship HMS Nelson in 1945; and

• one of the great photos of the war-survivors from amerchant ship being taken aboard a rescue ship,emotions ranging from the hysteria of a Lascar to thenumbed bewilderment of another man.

Well laid-out, Camera at Sea 1939-45 was edited andproduced by the staff of Warship

The Pacific War gives a fascinating insight into the USNavy's Archives in Washington. It was from this storeof superb but long-forgotten negatives that authorLarry Sowinski selected the photographs for this book.Within 208 pages Sowinski has managed tosuccessfully cram 37 colour and 443 black and whiteshots from Pearl Harbour to Tokyo Bay.

The book is divided into separate sections dealingwith Pearl Harbour, Hit and Run, the Solomons,Counter Attacks, Showdown in the Marianas, Leyte,The Winter Campaigns, Okinawa and Victory in thePacific. The photographic coverage in this book wassuch as to allow the arrangement of the pictures intochronological chapters, each photo being brieflycaptioned with some historic background beingincluded. The RAN is represented by a classic shot ofthe destroyer HMAS Warramunga coming up to a USdestroyer during July, 1943. There is a secondclose-up shot of Warramunga taking on stores on thesame page. Also featured is the heavy cruiser HMASShropshire with a photo of her bombarding Luzon priorto the amphibious assault.

Without even studying the pictorial captions there isclearly enough in this book to enthral the reader formany hours. Thought of the situation when some ofthese mind-boggling photos were taken is worthy ofconsideration and shows the dedication andprofessionalism of the naval photographer. Shots ofcleaning up after the attack on Pearl Harbour, thetorpedoed carrier Wasp. Kamikaze attacks anddamage, flight deck prangs, and a series on thewrecked battleships, aircraft carriers and other ImperialJapanese Navy units after bombing attacks on theJapanese homeland are awsome. The horror andfutility of war at sea have never been more graphicallyillustrated than in this book.

These two books are available in Australia throughPrinceton Books, Cnr Mills & Herald Street,Cheltenham, Victoria and most good bookshops.

I place them both in that rare category of books inwhich you can find something new every time you pickthem up. Recommended reading.

Vic Jeftery


SHACKLETON Roland Huntford, London, Hodder&Stoughton, 1985.UK price £14.95 (Book expected to be available inAustralia early in 1986)

After he had brought his Endurance party out of theWeddell Sea where he had lost his ship, Sir ErnestShackleton was treated with kindness and generosity inChile, Argentina, Uruguay and the United StatesHowever, he had a 'rough ride' in New Zealand andAustralia.

In their falling out with him, the Aurora ReliefCommittee had some right on their side in being criticalof the way in which he had left the management of theRoss Sea party in the hands of A LA. Mackintosh, butthey were not the right men to deal with Shackleton.Rear Admiral Sir William Creswell did not understandmerchant service masters. Professor D.O. Masson wasjust an academic. Griffith Taylor, one of Scott'sgeologists, had never organized anything. Shackletonwas angry because they had placed his ship underCaptain J.K. David. These men could not grasp themagnitude of his achievement in bringing his partyhome without loss. In the end, when they met, it was theCommittee that got a 'rough ride1, and they began torealize how they had misjudged the size of the man.

That was one of the points about Shackleton, thatmany did not recognize his ability, charm and leadershipuntil they met him. It was the thought of Shackletoncoming over the Antarctic continent from the WeddellSea that inspired the Ross Sea party to makeunbelievable efforts to carry out their task of layingdepots for him. Ernest Joyce had known him in theDiscovery and the Nimrod, and was completely loyal.Dick Richards told how Mackintosh, who had been inthe Nimrod, told the men who could not understand thisrespect, with his silly little laugh, 'You will when youmeet him'. Those who met him learned that high regard.Even Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty,changed his decision after he had lunched withShackleton in 1914.

His ability as a leader came out in his Nimrodexpedition of 1907-09, and even more in theEndurance in 1914-16. In the Discovery in 1901-03,Scott recognized his potential and 'put the boot in'. Hisdeath in the Quest at South Georgia in 1922 was a tragicend to an outstanding explorer.

That was the side the public saw. There was anotherman, who was careless with promises and finance, theinconstant husband, the restless man who could settleat nothing for any length of time, the heavy drinker, theman with original ideas, too acute for most of thecomfortably-placed geographers and officials of hisday, the man who did not fit in with the social world of

Edwardian England, but was quite at home in dealingwith a rating.

One great merit of this book is that it deals openly withall sides of Shackleton's character, reputable andotherwise, unlike the hagiographies of Scott, until thepublication of Scott and Amundsen in 1979. Anothermerit is that it has been compiled largely fromcontemporary letters and diaries, often quoted, showingwhat Shackleton did and thought, and what othersthought of him. Eighty-five pages of references andsources show how thoroughly Mr Huntford has done thejob over the past five years; the biography will not haveto be repeated. And the reader is left to make his ownjudgement It is the story of a big man, well told. Forsome 800 pages the price is reasonable There areillustrations (some of them not before published) andmaps.

A.G.E. Jones

THE FALKLANDS WAR Ed A.R. Coll and A.C. Arend,Boston, Allen and Unwin 1985 pp252 RRP $19.95

The Falklands War has produced a plethora ofpublications concentrating mainly on the militaryaspects of the war; this book deals with the abstractareas of strategy, diplomacy and international law. Thevarious contributors, most of whom are Americanacademics, examine the reasons for the outbreak ofthe war, its impact on international relationships andlessons to be learnt for possible future conflicts.

This book is ideal for those who enjoy accounts ofthe intricate workings of diplomacy. The failure of theUN and Alexander Haig to reach a compromisebetween the two participants is dealt with in depth withthat failure being seen as inevitable considering thelong-standing historical claims of both Great Britainand Argentina to the Falklands Malvmas.

The legal examination of who was in the rightgenerally supports Great Britain. This is based onArticle 2 (4) of the UN Charter which forbids the threator use of force against the territorial integrity or politicalindependence of any State. There are other factorswhich are examined but the conclusion in this book isthat it was Argentina's aggression that put her in thewrong.

An interesting book for the more scholarly reader.My only criticism is the somewhat overpowering legaljargon used in some of the articles.

Shane Moore


AIR MAIL RATESMembers and libraries overseas who would like to receive their journals by air mail, should add thefollowing sums to their subscription orders:

For those in New Zealand, PNGIndonesia, Malaysia, SingaporeHong Kong, India, JapanUSA, CanadaUK, Europe, South America

Other countries

AS6.00A$8.00

AS10.00A$1300AS14.00

on request

ADVERTISING INFORMATION

Size of JournalPrinting ProcessFull Page SizeHalf Page Size

— B5 International (Print area 215mm x 145mm)

— Offset Litho— 50 picas deep by 33 picas wide— 50 picas deep by 16 picas wide— 25 picas deep by 33 picas wide

Material Form Required — B&W: Clean art work or negatives— COLOUR: Four colour separation negatives

Screen Size — 133 preferred but 125-150 acceptableAdvertising Chargesa.

b.

Standard RateSingle Page (Internal)Double Page (Centre Spread)Half Page (Internal)Back Cover

Black & White$150$300$120$180

Full Colour$400$750$300$500

Discount Rate (Four or more successive insertions of same advertisement booked in asingle order)Single Page (Internal) $130 $300Double Page (Centre Spread) $260 $600Half Page (Internal) $110 $250Back Cover $160 $400

Notes: 1. The deadline for advertising material is 21 JAN, 21 APR, 21 JUL, 20 OCT.

2. Two-, Three- and Four-colour line advertisements can be inserted. Prices can besupplied on request.

3. Payment for advertising should be made after receipt of an invoice from the Institute.Further information on request to the Advertising Manager.


'WALRUS9The "new"submarine with 12 years at sea.

Platform:WALRUS' is the latest develop-

ment from the proven 'ZWAARD-VIS1-class, commissioned in 1972,with the following salient features:

• A teardrop shape hull for maxi-mum hydrodynamic efficiency• X-shape rudder configurationwith individual foil operation to pro-vide optimum control and manoeu-vrability under all conditions• Considerably increased divingdepth

• High shock resistance• Decreased ship's complementby automatic and remote control• Minimum noise level• High standard of accomodation.

Full scale mock-ups were usedfor layout design to ensure that ope-rational efficiency and maintain-ability are maximised.

Combat System:The 'WALRUS' combat system

has been designed for ASW, ASUW,

The ZWAARDVIS a! sea

longrange surveillance and miscel-laneous operations. Her modernsensors, weapons, integrated datahandling and fire control system in-corporate technology of the nine-ties

Both flexibility and the mostsophisticated subsystems are incor-porated. The integration and layoutof the Control Room in an ergonomicway extend crew efficiencies andmaximise operational flexibility.

Integrated Logistics Support:Our proven logistics support

system guarantees high operationalavailability and long ships life of'WALRUS'.

Our ILS system not only providesspares and training facilities, butalso preventive maintenance mana-gement based on condition monito-ring.

Technical documentation isbased on NATO and USN systems,but can be adapted to customerrequirements

"RDMRDM NAVAL ENGINEERINGPO Box 913,3000 AX Rotterdam, The NetherlandsPhone (+31 10)872861 Telex 20753 rdm nl

Page 70 — Nov '85, Journal ol the Australian Naval Institute

NAVAL INSTITUTE INSIGNIA(Order form overleaf)

Crests . .Crests are meticulously hand-painted in full colour andare handsomely mounted on polished New Zealandtimber. They measure 175mm * 130mm (5" x 7").The price is $13.00 each, plus $2.00 postage +packing.*

Cuff-links . . .The cuff-links are robustly made and are attractivelyfinished in gold and black. They are epoxy-capped toensure long life and are packaged in presentationboxes. The price is $10.00 a pair, plus $1.00postage * packing.'

Ties . . .Ties are dark blue with a single ANI badge in gold.Price $7.00 plus $1.00 postage + packing.*

Journal binders . . .

Journal binders are coloured blue,with gold lettering and ANI crest.Each binder holds copies of thejournal by means of a metal rodinserted simply through the middlepage of each journal and held firmlyat top and bottom of the binder.Plastic envelopes on the bottom ofthe spine enable volume numbers oryears to be inserted. Price $6.00 eachplus $2.00 postage t packing.*

[" Can be deleted if alternative means of carriage are arranged]



* APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP* NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

(Block Letters)Rank: Surname:

Other Names: Service:

Street:

City: State: Postcode:

" I apply to join the Australian Naval Institute Inc as a Regular/Associate member, and enclose mycheque for $25 (being $5 joining fee and $20 annual subscription).

* The above library/organisation wishes to subscribe to the Journal of the Australian NavalInstitute Inc and encloses a cheque for $20.00 annual subscription.

If accepted for membership. I agree to abide by the Constitution and By-laws of the Institute.

""('Bate)"" ""(Signed)""

(Members or subscribers who join during the year will receive back copies of the current volume ofthe Journal).

' Delete as appropriate.

INSIGNIA ORDERS

Please forward:

pairs of cuff-inks (n $10.00 $ journal binders (" $6.00

... mounted crests t<i $13.00 $ ... ties (" $7.00

I enclose my cheque for $ including $ postage if delivery is to be by Australia Post.(delete if alternative means of carriage are arranged.)

Name

Address

... Postcode ...

All cheques/money orders should be made payable to The Australian Naval Institute Inc and should be inAuQtralian rnrrpnrw Thp aHHrocc ic-Australian currency. The address is

The Australian Naval Institute Inc.,PO Box 80CAMPBELL ACT 2601


THE AUSTRALIAN NAVAL INSTITUTE INC

PATRON

His Excellency the Right Honourable Sir Ninian StephenAK, GCMG, GCVO, KBE

Governor-General of Australia

COUNCIL

OFFICE BEARERS

PresidentCommodore I.B. James AM

Senior Vice PresidentCaptain A.H.R. Brecht

Junior Vice PresidentCaptain I.A. Callaway

SecrefaryLieutenant Commander S. Lemon

TreasurerCommander P.K. Coulson

Journal EditorLieutenant Commander J. Hyman

COUNCILLORSCommodore A.R. Cummins AM

Commander G.P. Kable

Lieutenant C.F. Lammers

Captain C.J. LittletonLieutenant Commander P.J. Purnell-WebbCommander S.E. TapleyLieutenant Commander P. TorrensPetty Officer G. WatsonLieutenant Commander R.J WillisLieutenant Commander I.W. Weekley

PAST PRESIDENTS

1975-77 Commodore V.A, Parker1977-78 Commodore J.A. Robertson

1978-83 Rear Admiral R.C. Swan AO CBE

Rt

HONORARY LIFE MEMBERS

Admiral Sir Victor Smith AC KBE CB DSCVice Admiral Sir David Stevenson AC KBE

Commodore V.A ParkerAdmiral Sir Anthony Synnot KBE AO

Commodore J.A RobertsonHon Sir Zelman Cowen AK, GCMG, GCVO,

Rear Admiral R.C. Swan AO CBEQC

FOUNDATION MEMBERS

Bennett, G ABerlyn. N.R BBonnett. V W IBrecht, A H RBroben, I WCalderwood. G.C.Cole. S E WCummins, A R.Cults. GDalrymple. H H GDavidson, J.Dickie, D DFisher. T RFox, L.GGeorge, J

Gibbs. 8.G.Goddard, F CGnerson. K WHall, I WHermann. F JMisted, GJames. IB.Jervis. G EJosselyn. I KKemp. W AKnox, I WLee. N.E.Lottus. W BLoosli. R G

Martin, D JMartin, P C SMayson. J HMcDonald. N.E.Macleod. B.D.Nattey. R JNicholson. B MNicholson I HOrr. D JParker. V APatterson. D RRalph, NRead, B.JReynolds, I

Robertson. J AScott. B PSharp. W RShearing. J.ASmyth. D.H.DSnell, K.EStephen. K CStevens. E.V.Stevens. J DSummers. A M FSwan, R CSwan. W.N.Williams. K AYork, D

Public Officer: Captain L.G. Fox RANEM

The brain behind the bite.

Today's strike power, on land,sea and in the air, needs thecontrol of the most sophisticatedsystems.

No one has more capabilitythan Ferranti in providingcomputer systems to meet themost exacting demands.

Ferranti is working closelywith land, sea and air forcesaround the world to provide datacorrelation, missile guidance,command and control, datalinks, training and simulatorsystems for current andfuture needs.

Give bite to your defence.

Ferranti Computer Systems Ltd,Western Road, Bracknell,Berkshire RG12 IRA.Tel: 0344 483232, Telex: 848117

FERRANTIComputer Systems

JOURNAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN NAVAL INSTITUTE … · Janes Fighting Ships: A History — G.Andrews 23...

Documents

Transcript of JOURNAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN NAVAL INSTITUTE … · Janes Fighting Ships: A History — G.Andrews 23...