Talk:HMAS Kuttabul (ship)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMAS Kuttabul (ship) article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... Australian military history task force Japanese military history task force Maritime warfare task force World War II task force

[edit] Why was the Kuttabul commissioned?

One question this article raises but doesn't answer is why she was commisioned in the first place. From the descriptions of the attack I have found on various sources, it seems that the Kuttabul was essentially being used as a unarmed floating dormitory permanently moored alongside at Green Island, and was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It seems unlikely that RAN would go to the trouble of commisioning her, appointing a commanding officer, etc. for a ship that was being used in such a non-independent, non-combatant fashion. It would be more normal for a hull used in this way to be simply regarded as a hulk or a piece of floating dockyard equipment.

Was there a previous or planned usage in a more military role?. -- Chris j wood 13:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As a follow on to that, I just found the following text on the RAN web site:

Commissioned on 01 Jan 1943, HMAS KUTTABUL is named after the converted ferry KUTTABUL, which was lost to enemy action in Sydney Harbour. In 1963 the current ships badge was approved, the badge retained the indigenous NSW waratah and the white St Andrews Cross from the house flag of Sydney Ferries Ltd. The word KUTTABUL is Aboriginal for wonderful.[1]

Given the way the normally precise Navy talks about the Kuttabul-the-ship without the HMAS honorific, I'm beginning to wonder if she actually ever was commissioned. It is possible the HMAS as applied to the ship is a misnomer, based on a confusion with Kuttabul-the-base, which definately is a commissioned 'ship'. Can anybody throw any light on this. -- Chris j wood 13:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I looked up Kuttabul today in Vic Cassells' For Those in Peril (1995; pp 35-36). He refers to it as "HMAS", whereas some vessels taken over by the navy during WW2 do not get the HMAS in his book. (Even the tiny channel patrol boats in the harbour were HMAS, including the unfortunately-named HMAS Lolita.) Cassells states that Kuttabul had no pennant number, but it did have a commanding officer. (I think Cassells has got one detail wrong, when he says that a visiting American "Squadron Leader" was among those killed in the sinking. I think he may be referring to the death of Lt Cantello in a plane crash during the shelling of June 8.) Like some others Cassells classifies Kuttabul as an "accommodation ship", but I believe "depot ship" is the correct classification.

By the way, I believe "SS" is not an official title, and the ship would have simply been Kuttabul when it was a pre-war ferry. Even bigger merchant vessels were officiall known simply as (e.g.) Neptuna etc at the time. Grant65 | Talk 15:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)