Talk:Royal Australian Navy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
needs some info on the tsunami releif effort, plus the ppl who died in Nias The bellman 10:51, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Update
I've worked on this page- adding in a brief history section, and details of current fleet. It could do with some more work plus images. Astrotrain 21:10, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I would like to see something on the Chief of Navy, Maritime Command and Naval Systems Command 202.6.138.34 13:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] SH-2 Seasprite helicopters
From the table: "Oliver Hazard Perry Class Friagte...Anti-submarine and anti-aircraft frigate with SH-2 Seasprite helicopters "
The Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates do NOT embark SeaSPRITES, they have 2 hangers for SeaHAWK helicopters. Many of the ANZAC frigates also have seahawks and not the smaller Seasprites.
- I've verified this to the RAN website, and updated. Thanks for noticing. Astrotrain 17:18, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Biggest loss
The article says: The RAN's biggest single loss of the war was that of the sister ship to Australia, HMAS Canberra at the Battle of Savo Island, in August 1942.
How is this true? Over 600 lives were lost when Sydney went down, but most of Canberra's crew survived. --Surgeonsmate 11:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Whilst perhaps a misleading terminology, I believe that the phrase in question pertains to the nature of the ships involved in the comparisions (i.e the loss of a Cruiser versus a Light Cruiser) rather than the numbers of casualties (193 to over 600). It may seem slightly cold-hearted but this sort of phrase may be based on a notion that the loss of a Cruiser was of more significance than the lives of the men of HMAS Sydney (effects on Order of Battle and available forces? - despite manpower shortages?) Battlensign 12:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC).
- I appreciate the point, and yes, the loss of a cruiser as opposed to a light cruiser hurts the war effort more, though one might also say that saving most of the crew reduced the impact. I've added a few words of clarification. What really brings the Sydney loss home is seeing all those names on the wall at the Australian War Memorial. Most ships have a few names, but those from the Sydney stretch over panel ater panel. --Surgeonsmate 03:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I have seen the War Memorial names wall panels devoted to the HMAS Sydney crew losses and they do stand to make a compelling case for questioning the yardstick used for describing the 'Worst Loss". Having looked at the revisions made on this point, I am inclined to think the changes are well thought out, especially given the fact that there is such a potential for debate on the issue at hand (effect of losses of ships versus skilled manpower etc) and that this is something ideally uncharacteristic of an aspiring encyclopaedia. Battlensign 12:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Drowning aboard
Robertson suffered a heart attack 8 miles outside Port Phillip Heads whilst onboard HMAS Yarra and drowned.
Hang about. How did he drown if he was aboard at the time? He was having a tub? He fell over the side? He slumped into his soup bowl? --Surgeonsmate 13:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] World War II
I thought we declared war on 3 September the same day as britain, not a few days later as indicated in article. Regards Hossens27 09:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC) That is quite correct. On 3rd September 1939, P.M. Menzies announced "It is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that, in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war." The expression "as a result" was a consequence of Australian Government failure to ratify the Westminster Statute of 1931 which effectively divorced Australia from decisions of the British Government. The suggestion that we declared war some days after Britain probably stems from the later endorsement by Cabinet of Menzies' decision. User : Lorexau 25 May 2006
[edit] LCDR Fahy
Following text removed from main article.
- In 1989 Robyn Fahy became the first female graduate from the Royal Australian Naval College and to join the Royal Australian Navy and go on to become a lieutenant commander at the West Australian naval base HMAS Stirling.
- But in which time she says she was punched, spat on, and more. She says the abuse resumed six years ago at HMAS Stirling, when Lieutenant Commander Fahy stood up for a younger female colleague who had allegedly suffered sexual harassment.
- The Lieutenant Commander was then wrongly by a navy reservist doctor diagnosed with a psychiatric illness, and narrowly avoided being sent to a mental hospital. The doctor was found guilty of misconduct by the Western Australian Medical Board.
- Lieutenant Commander Fahy and her family have been fighting for an apology and a settlement with the Defence Force ever since.She has now been ordered to return to service.
- The Lieutenant Commander has claimed that vilification has been poured on her by the media. She says she has been called a liar, grossly incompetent, a slut, a lesbian, a radical feminist and mentally unstable.
- A naval officers has told her that if she tried to return to the HMAS Stirling, she would be "crucified".
___
I do not believe it is appropriate for people to be campaigning in a Wikipedia article on behalf of current, unsubstantiated allegations made by a serving member of the ADF.Nick Thorne 22:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Carriers and subs
HMAS Albatross was a seaplane carrier, AE1 and AE2, Oxley and Otway were subs, all served pre-WW2. Post war Terrible, Vengeance and Majestic were carriers transferred from the RN in 1947, 1952 and 1955 respectively. Terrible was renamed Sydney, Vengeance was on loan until Majestic was completed with an angled deck and renamed Melbourne. We gained the new O class subs post war. However, we lost our cruisers in and after the war. --Jumbo 10:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] History
The history section of this article is a real mess at the moment. It has no unifying theme, is poorly structured and the different sections differ greatly in quality (for example, the coverage of the Navy prior to WW1 is excellent while the coverage of the Navy's role in WW2 is very poor and confusing). One approach to fixing it would be to create a History of the Royal Australian Navy article and strip the information in this article back to a very brief overview. Thoughts? --Nick Dowling 11:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agree there is a need to for a seperate article, the article should be similar to History of the Royal Navy and History of the United States Navy. Hossens27 12:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- True the pre WW1 info is much better, there does need to be an improvement on WW2 articles eg. Military history of Australia during World War II. The RN and USN history articles are not that comprehensive and long, would an Australian version be a similar length relying on other more specific articles to go into more detail. Hossens27 12:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree that the RN and USN history articles would make good models (though I'd like to include more photos!). My motivation in proposing a seperate article is simply to get the (inevitably) wordy history section out the main RAN article to improve its readability. I also agree that the Military history of Australia during World War II entry is incredibly bad - the only way that it could be worse is for it to not exist, which was the case before I started it. --Nick Dowling 12:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Your right if you remove the history section the RAN article is a much easier read. I think we are in agreement over the creation of a seperate article. The new article should propably be seperated by time.
-
- Pre federation
- Federation to WW1, maybe with a seperate article for the formation of the RAN
- between the wars
- WW2
- Cold War period
- recent time 1990's
- future of the RAN
do you think it should follow this path or should it follow another. Hossens27 12:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- That structure looks very good to me. Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter? --Nick Dowling 12:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've started the seperate page and wrote a brief history of the RAN. Lots of work is needed on both I suspect. --Nick Dowling 05:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- That structure looks very good to me. Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter? --Nick Dowling 12:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] HMS Sussex Fremantle Austealia 1942
I am seeking information on the above .I was serving aboard her at this time as a Royal Marine Bandsman and had many friends ashore during our two year attachment at this station ,I would like if possible to find any photographs which may be around as we did, in the short intervals we were in harbour,help with entertainment for the people of Freemantle; one person who was a great supporter of our efforts which included a dance ashore and a childrens party on the ship was a Mrs Robinson, can anyone help please ? ←–bandyjerry