HMAS Australia: Battlecruiser 1911-1924

[kookaburra]

Herk, forgive me for putting this in a separate thread to your HMAS Australia, dealing with the three ships that have carried the proud name. I think this is rather different - an extended pictorial portrait of the RAN's first flagship (maybe the largest gathering of pictures of her, 50 to come, ever assembled. And I think there will be a few little or previously unseen ones among them).

As the earlier thread has pointed out, the first HMAS Australia (that is, with the Australian appellation) was an Indefatigable class battlecruiser whose tonnage I have seen variously reported between 18,500 and 21,300 tons. There were various armour, bridge and director additions during the war, and although the cumbersome anti-torpedo netting and booms was removed, I think she may have ended up about 19,500 tons displacement.

Completed at John Brown's shipyard in June 1913, Australia steamed into Sydney Harbour at the head of the fledging new Australian fleet on October 4, 1913 - a great moment for the country, and that is her significance. Even after the 1908 visit of The Great White Fleet, she was described then as the most powerful warship ever to enter the Sydney Harbour.

Her war record was generally undistinguished. Yet her presence caused Von Spee's powerful German Pacific Squadron to vacate the field and meet its fate at the Falklands as it tried to get home to Germany. John Bastock, in his 1973 limited edition book, Australia's Ships of War maintains that HMAS Australia's presence 'undoubtedly' prevented an attack on Australian cities and shipping by Von Spee's squadron.


In August 1914 she led Australian fleet operations against the German colony on New Britain, then with HMAS Melbourne escorted New Zealand troops from Noumea to German Samoa; and the following month was engaged in the operations which resulted in the seizure of German New Guinea.

She captured a small German steamer Sumatra, and another, Eleanore Woermann off the Falklands on her subsequent voyage to join the British fleet. The latter was sunk after the people aboard were removed. At Portsmouth Australia became flagship of Admiral George Patey's Second Battlecruiser Squadron.

A collision in fog with HMS New Zealand caused her to miss the battle of Jutland in 1916, which may have been just as well, considering her class name ship, and two other British battlecruisers blew up with huge loss of life during that engagement. Eighteen months later, in late December 1917 Australia was also involved in a collision with HMS Repulse/I]. In 1918 she was used for aircraft experiments,.

In November 1918 she led the port column of the Grand Fleet at the surrender of the German High Seas Fleet, with custody over SMS [I]Hindenburg.

Returning to Australia via Suez, in 1920 she led the naval welcome for the Prince of Wales's visit in HMS Renown. It's often said that HMAS Australia was disposed of under the provisions of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty.

The fact is that, due to manning and budget problems, she had already been reduced to a training role at Flinders Naval Base in Victoria two years earlier, and was decommissioned on December 12, 1921. It was less than 8 1/2 years since she had been launched.

The fact is that the Indefatrigable Class battlecruisers, with their en echelon arrangement of 12-inch turrets and light armour protection were becoming obsolescent by the time that they were launched. The Royal Navy was already building the more imposing (and more expensive) Lion Class at the same time.

Nonetheless, the nation grieved when HMAS Australia, the R.A.N.'s first flagship, was scuttled in 150 fathoms of water, 24 miles off Sydney's inner South Head on the 12 of April, 1924.

The pics in this and following posts come from John Bastock's Australia's Ships of War ; Ross Gillett's Australian and New Zealand Warships 1914-1945; Gillett's Warships of Australia; George Odgers's The Royal Australian Navy: An Illustrated History; R.G. Parker's Parker's Cockatoo Island: A history; Alun Evans's Royal Australian Navy; Gillett and Melliart Phelps's A Century of Ships in Sydney Harbour; and various websites. In particular are four Smith family photographs contributed to a website dedicated to Signals Yoeman George Smith DSM by his daughter Val Summertree, which are the pictures 8-12 here, including two dealing with visits to the ship by the Prince of Wales and King George V.


The fourth photo here shows Prime Minister William Morris (Billy) Hughes addressing the ship's company in Britain during the war. In pic 14 you can clearly see the additional armour added to Australia's turrets. (HMS New Zealand, similarly reinforced, took a hit on a turret at Jutland and escaped without harm).

[kookaburra]

Post Two: Life on Board, and The End. That's it.

[herakles]

K, you've supplied the detail on a great ship that is long overdue here. A fine post it is.

You've hit the right note - the Indefatigable class ships just weren't up to it.

Your mention of Australia's role in the Pacific region is timely. It was of great importance.

[TCC]

Hi KB
Thank you for sharing these.. some I'd seen before but A lot of them were new.

'ppreciate it...

[Maritime Michael Ian]

Lovely photos K.... wasn't her tripod mast erected on Bradley's Head in Sydney Harbour??? if so I have a photo of that somewhere!

Ian

[kookaburra]

Thanks Ian - it's HMAS Sydney (1)'s tripod mast on Bradley's Head.

[Maritime Michael Ian]

Thanks for the clarification K...

Ian

[sons of anzac]

Have to ask it then- what did happen to her fightng top? Its clearly missing at her date with scuttling destiny.

I dont imagine it would have had anything to with Washington Treaty terms as they were scuttling the whole ship. not converting her to training / trials duties like some of the more fortunate WW1 era BB's eg HMS Iron Duke, HIJMS Hiei etc.

[kookaburra]

Have to ask it then- what did happen to her fightng top? Its clearly missing at her date with scuttling destiny.

I dont imagine it would have had anything to with Washington Treaty terms as they were scuttling the whole ship. not converting her to training / trials duties like some of the more fortunate WW1 era BB's eg HMS Iron Duke, HIJMS Hiei etc.



You know that those are quite interesting questions - both the fate of Australia 1's fighting top, and the question of her scuttling.

SPECIAL REPORT: The End of HMAS Australia

The Anglo-Australia squardon has as its flagship the AUSTRALIA, which, by itself, is an adversary so much stronger than our squadron that one would be bound to avoid it.'
- Admiral Von Spee, in a letter to his wife, August 18, 1914.

When HMAS Australia 1 was towed out of Sydney Heads and scuttled on April 12, 1924 she was scarcely 11 years old. She had been in commission for less than nine years. Although of a Class (Indefatigible) that was rapidly becoming obsolete by the time of their construction, and despite the provisions of the Five Power Washington Naval Treaty, there were arguments that Australia could have been retained and effectively modernised, allowing the RAN to have kept a capital ship capacity.

There is an interesting article in the Navy publication Semaphore, of May 2004, that looks at these questions. Its here:

http://www.navy.gov.au/w/index.php/Publication:Semaphore_-_Issue_5%2C_2004

Some main points from this piece include:

*A proposition that there were loopholes that existed in the Washington Naval Treaty that might have allowed HMAS Australia to be retained.

* That, although obsolete, she could have been modernised - her armament re-arranged and armour protection increased, more modern engine systems installed - for the cost of a County Class cruiser. The article argues she would have have projected a more powerful deterrent presence in the Pacific region than vessels of that kind, two of which eventually replaced her.

* The main obstacles were cost and manning, and Australia had been laid up in reserve for two years before her scuttling.


* Another obstacle against retention raised at the time was that Britain had ceased production of 12-inch shells and weapons systems. But Semaphore states that there were 95 barrels, and 40,000 rounds of 12-inch ammunition still stored in Britain at the time, and these could have maintained her in service for many years.

*South American countries maintained modernised vessels of the kind, with 12 inch guns, into the 1950s, and a number of American armoured cruisers and older battleships based in the Pacific in the 1920s had only 10-inch guns - so she would have been a powerful vessel in the region. Guns of a similar kind, 12-inch, were also mounted in Spanish coastal defence forts well into the 1990s.

Australia's sister ship, HMS New Zealand of course was also broken up, but the question of whether the Treaty was necessarily binding on Australia is also discussed. It appears to have rested on a clause which held that Australia, a Dominion, could not have taken the action of retaining the former flagship if it was deemed to be 'against Britain's interests' - i.e. put Britain in breach of the Treaty. Which, to my mind, was really a matter of political will within Australia.

And that was not there. The attitude, for the cost and manning reasons already mentioned, and her obsolescent state, is summed up by the heading of the Semaphore article, which is drawn from a RAN history ...that the loss 'was more symbolic than material.'

The End .

Its forgotten now that the scuttling of the nation's first flagship, just 11 years after her triumphal arrival in Sydney Harbour, was a sad and emotional moment in Australia. A great deal of pride had been invested in her. Rear Admiral H.J. Feakes said: 'strong men were wet eyed; many cursed; it was a tragic blunder."

HMAS Australia rolled over and went down, surrounded by the Chatham and Town Class cruisers on which the country's naval defence now mainly rested, until the arrival of Australia 11 and Canberra, and the more modern Modified Leander Class cruisers later in the 1930s. A Royal Navy squadron, en route to Brisbane, paused to pay their respects, and a 21 gun salute was fired over her.

What's left of Her.
Being taken from Reserve, HMAS Australia had been sold, for dismantling and salvage before scuttling, to a company of civilian contractors for just 300 pounds. Her cost, just over a decade earlier had been two million pounds.

The work of pulling her to pieces had been undertaken over three months alongside Garden Island. Her gun barrels were cut more than half-way through under the terms of the Treaty.

An RAN website says that, because she was such a famous ship, many relics were maintained, or souvenired, and spread throughtout Australia. The ship's bell, of course. Many fittings went into the Department of Supply warehouses. There is now a breach of one of her 12-inch guns mounted in a display at the Australian National Maritime Museum in Sydney, and I'm not sure whether that is the same one, or a second, which was at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra.

The table from her admiral's cabin went to the Opposition Party Room in the Senate, at Parliament House in Canberra. Her siren remained in use for many years on top of a power utility also in Canberra. There are a number of 12-inch projectiles scattered around various museums and Navy installations.


The Fighting Top

Sons of Anzac has asked what happened to her fighting top, considering that of HMAS Sydney 1 is mounted on its tripod mast at Bradleys Head in Sydney Harbour, and is a well-known landmark.

I had a look at that. The photos below clearly demonstrate that Australia's tripod masts went down with her. And so did her fighting top. What a shame.

In April1984, the Navy League of Australia's magazine, The Navy published a long article on Australia's scuttling, and it says the fighting top had been torn down and thrown over a hole in the decks, down which with three gun barrels, many projectiles, a funnel and much other scrap had been thrown to increase her bottom weight for sinking.

An edited extract:

On her main quarterdecks there was a scene of devastation. Her eight 12-inch guns still point fore and aft, but they are no longer guns. The oxy acetylene flame has cut through the barrels half through in the middle and just enough remains to keep the barrels rigid. Portions of the tops have been lifted away and dropped down gaping holes cut through her decks of steel. In order to hasten her sinking when the end is at hand, below the decks themselves have been cut in all directions


When AUSTRALIA was a fighting unit there were about 500 complete compartments in her. It was impossible to walk any distance along any deck below... By cutting great holes through the decks and compartment walls the whole ship has been opened up and it is possible to see the bottom of the former engine room ...looking down one can only see dimly a hopeless tangle of debris. The huge fighting top which came from the foremast lies over the top of the gaping hole On the starboard starboard side of the quarterdeck amidships and on the port side is secured the mid funnel, which lies bruised on its side.

So there you have it. The fate of HMAS Australia's fighting top is resolved. It is 24 miles due East of Sydney Heads in 150 fathoms of water - and part of a designated historic shipwreck site.

The end. K.

[sons of anzac]

What a pitiless destiny................ they certainly wrecked her.

Immaterial of the scuttling of the hull, I'd have retained her guns and main turrets and used them as coastal batteries- 1 x turreted gun outfit each to Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth.

[kookaburra]

The Treaty apparently required the weaponry be destroyed. BTW, I've just noticed, if you look at the fourth pic in my previous post, you can actually see the fighting top sitting on the deck, just above the flagpole in the foreground.

[sons of anzac]

Yep, you're right- its there when you know what you are looking at- can see the yardarm extensions. Would have been great to see that preserved somewhere- oh well. Hindsight.

[Bill_Woerlee]

Mates

Just to add to the HMAS Sydney story - a minor incident for the ship - although not for the men involved.

The loss of two crewmen:

Stoker Robert F Houton
Stoker Leslie W Roberts

Both died on board HMS Vanguard when it "blew up with a very robust explosion." 11.27 pm 9 July 1917.

I have attached a copy of the ships log of the HMAS Australia for 10 July 1917 detailing that event.

Cheers

Bill

[Australia]

What a pitiless destiny................ they certainly wrecked her.

Immaterial of the scuttling of the hull, I'd have retained her guns and main turrets and used them as coastal batteries- 1 x turreted gun outfit each to Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth.
Hmm, not much protection, but then a 19th century Krupp gun sank a heavy cruiser in the Oslo fjord. Was it Blucher?

[Tiornu]

That's right, Blucher was hit by a couple 28cm shells, plus a number of 15cm shells and two old torpedoes. Blucher's armor was generally thinner than Australia's.

[kookaburra]

Australia's Day

I think I might add the previously unseen first photo here to my folder of special favourites - purely an historical thing for an Australian probably, but I found it full of atmosphere.

I'm also adding a few other unposted pics from that day: Oct 4, 1913, and HMAS Australia's first entry into Sydney with the new Navy's squadron. Australia had steamed out from Britain in company with HMAS Sydney, and the ships had been ordered not to call into any other Australian ports en route in order to make the ceremonial entry into Sydney a big 'first' occasion.

As discussed earlier, as Admiral Patey's flagship, Australia's main influence on WW1 was one of deterrence, in that her presence caused Von Spee's squadron to flee the Pacific - something that in strategic terms should not be under-rated.

That said, Australia was fated to miss all the big actions in the North Sea and the Channel when she finally joined the Second Battle Squadron at Rosyth.

There was the surrender of the High Seas Fleet, and after the war, she accompanied HMS Renown when that great ship brought the Prince of Wales to Australia in 1920.

But, I guess this 1913 entry, and her premature scuttling off Sydney on April 12, 1924, under the Washington Treaty, were HMAS Australia's two most famous days.

Anyway, I thought I 'd revive this thread a little with these photos. The best 'ship portraits' of Australia are back in Posts #1 and 2.

[kookaburra]

Truthfully dear old HMAS Australia 1 is beginning to feel like a slightly tired subject to me now, but maybe that's just me . Anyway I thought we'd better have this pic: it's from the State Library of NSW's photostream. It's a good big postcard-type photograph.

[airlana]

A toss of the coin as to which thread to put this.

"HMAS Australia returning home throught the Suez Canal 1919"

and she drew quite an audience:)

airlana

[qprdave]

Launching of the Battlecruiser Australia

Published in The Times on October 25, 1911

[BALTICSUBS]

Like the newspaper clips you keep digging up!

HMAS Australia's Ship Book, Naval Office Copy is availiable for free here. Very detailed, and you can download every page.

http://naa12.naa.gov.au/scripts/Items_listing.asp?S=10&F=1&O=0&T=I&C=4

[qprdave]

Thanks Balticsub

Tried your link unfortunately it goes to a log in page!

Dave

[qprdave]

1) Report by The Times on The King visiting HMAS Australia at Portsmouth, England 30th June 1913
2) Visit to HMAS Australia by the Australian High Commissioner July 2, 1913

Dave

[BALTICSUBS]

the earlier link i put down, click on it, Just hit LOGIN, then go in as a guest.

When your search page comes up type in HMAS Australia in the keywords.

Then in the year put in 1914.

Then in reference numbers type in AUSTRALIA I


Hope this helpes

[culverin]

You will note she is still referred to as an Armoured Cruiser as was New Zealand although ordered post Lion the title Battlecruiser was introduced about the time she commissioned a full year after lion & 7 months after Princess Royal.
To this day there is no full explanation why Australia & New Zealand were built to an outdated but modified indefatigable design especially as Queen Mary was only 2 months behind & bearing in mind the RN ships ran parallel with the Battleships ordered during any particular years estimates.
I suspect fisher was up to something or the exchange rate down under was bad. They also needed pretty significant crews

[BALTICSUBS]

I'm currently going through a lot of documents re the Australian invasion of German New Guinea. They talk a lot of von Spee's Squadron, and von Spee's mob talk of HMAS Australia as well. Hard to believe they could take on Australia, which as you mention was outdated, but for where she was to operate in Australian waters, she had no equal. Australia was more suited to this area than fighting a slugging match at Jutland.

During the long journey across the Pacific the German Squadron
carried out several raids against the Entente. On September 7 Nürnberg
destroyed the wireless station at Fanning Island, depriving the allies
of a valuable communication link between Australia and Canada. Shortly
afterwards Scharnhorst and Gneisenau made a surprise attack on Samoa,
which had just been occupied by New Zealand troops. The hope was to
take any British or Australian warships there by surprise. The First
Offizier of Gneisenau, Korvettenkapitän Hans Pochhammer, wrote: "We
rapidly went over in our minds the ships we might find there, from
Australia, whose 12 inch guns inspired a certain respect, to the old light cruisers, which would not long be able to survive our appearance."

Unfortunately for the Germans, Apia roadstead lay empty. Finally on 22 September the German Squadron attacked the French colony of Papeete, where the French gunboat Zélée was taken under fire and sunk. The French defenders opened fire on the German ships, but as Korvettenkapitän Pochhammer explained: "Our men refused to regard the few old shells from the forts as enemy fire," and considered they still had yet to receive their baptism of fire."

[astraltrader]

A picture of Australia to illustrate the thread.

[BALTICSUBS]

Taken in the Australian War Mem yesterday.

[VirtualF]

Im sure Ive read on the internet that HMAS Australia had been rediscovered by ROV's.Has anybody seen any images yet?

[qprdave]

Here is a report published in The Times of London on the 6th Oct 1913 of the arrival of the Australian Squadron at Sydney on the 4th Oct 1913.

Dave

[Jackaroo]

Im sure Ive read on the internet that HMAS Australia had been rediscovered by ROV's.Has anybody seen any images yet?

Have not seen any images of HMAS Australia 1 yet.
The following information below is from here

http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/shipwrecks/australian.html[/SIZE]

In March 2007 the deepest ever remote operated shipwreck survey was undertaken some fifty kilometres off Sydney. The target was the wreck of Australia's first flagship, the heavy battle cruiser HMAS Australia (http://maritime.heritage.nsw.gov.au/public/Site_View.cfm?Site_ID=1776). The survey was a joint venture between the Royal Australian Navy, Defence Maritime Services and the Heritage Office, NSW Department of Planning. The visiting US Navy submersible Curv descended 380 metres down to the 180-metre long, 19, 000 ton shipwreck - the largest in Australian waters. Australia served throughout World War One and was ceremoniously scuttled off Sydney in 1924, a result of the Washington Arms Treaty which aimed at reducing global tonnage of warships after the Great War. The site is protected under the Commonwealth [I]Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976

[sandy1000]

If you were writing about military disasters would it be fair to include the battlecruiser HMAS Australia as a disaster waiting to happen? The reasons for inclusion would be that the battlecruiser concept was seriously flawed and that the loss of RN battlecruisers (excepting HMS Repulse) could invariably be traced back to the shortcomings of the design concept. Would the inclusion of HMAS Australia stand up to scrutiny as a potential disaster?

[barryp]

It could be argued that if 'Australia' had come up against the High Seas Fleet a disaster was possible, although I don't regard the sinking of one warship by another as a disaster. It could also be argued that, in deterring Von Spee's squadron from entering Australian waters, the purchase of the first 'Australia' was the wisest defence expenditure in the Commonwealth's history.

[culverin]

The views in # 31 are frankly flawed, the fact remains it did not happen, and the shortcomings of the type are well documented, far more so than the perceived conception they were a floating death trap waiting to happen.
What does remain a mystery is why both Australia and New Zealand were constructed to a modified Indefatigable design, this ship being acknowledged as probably the worst of it's type in RN service and not simply because of her loss at Jutland.
Lion was laid down 29 Nov 1909
Princess Royal laid down 2 May 1910
So other than cost alone why were Australia and New Zealand not constructed to this new and much improved type. It is believed because the Australians were more desirous of an armoured cruiser, and that is what these ships at this time were still classed and known as.
Australia laid down 23 Jun 1910
New Zealand 20 Jun 1910
and they both completed well after Lion, it must have been most galling for their crews once at sea.
You need to move on to another war and the loss of the light cruiser Sydney which amply illustrates the futility of tarring each ship in a class as poor simply because of the action it was involved in at the time. Neptune was also lost with only the 1 survivor but the 8 ships in the class are still considered amongst the finest to see service in the RN and RAN.
I think it is called the fortune of war. Or misfortune depending on your point of view.

[astraltrader]

I have added the top three posts to this main thread about Australia.

[Harley]

"Australia" was supposed to go to, surprise, Australia, and before Churchill became First Lord it had been intended for "New Zealand" to form part of the Eastern Fleet, i.e. following the historic precedent of having what might be termed second-class capital ships on foreign stations. And they were both somewhat cheaper than the "Lion" class, which is important to remember when the Royal Navy wasn't the one paying the builder's fees.

Simon

[dave.moscow1]

You might be interested in this website "www.scotlandsimages.com". Once in search for shipbuilding you will see shots for both of HMAS Australia's. This is a small selection of images from the John Brown shipyard collection held here in Scotland. There are photographs +albums +over 40.000 negatives of ships built at the yard. If you want to find out more about a particular ship you will have to contact The National Archives of Scotland directly, they have a website where you can find out what photographs and negatives they have.
Last year I viewed 630 images for HMS DUKE OF YORK from the keel through the build untill she left the yard.



Dave K

[Nigel999]

When looking at the Battlecruiser principle , it has to be recalled precisely why the design was taken up.

They were designed to chase down and sink enemy cruisers, just like the Battle of the Falklands, that was their intended use.

Critics of the design held view that they would be deployed in the line of battle , something they were never designed to do. Sadly the critics were correct on that one.

Having said that , would they have been lost had the propellant not been as it was?

So many questions, so few answers.

Cheers, Nigel

[culverin]

Australia was the most despised and worst possible draft any Aussie could end up on in WW1.
Her career was deemed boring, tedious and with no action, totally dead end, a ship dominated by the Brits in all the senior positions and this trend continued right through to her return post war to her mother country.
Quite probably the most unhappy sea draft ever in the RAN.