HMAS Canberra

[patroclus]

Originally Posted by Tiornu

This would be quite surprising. There were only ten 5.5in guns in the battle. There were thirty-four 8in guns. Is there a copy of the Enquiry online?

No copy of the RAN report on line that I know of and Hepburn's USN report was classified "Secret". I do not know if it is now in the public domain.

I agree that the conclusions re the 5.5" hits is an improbable one. The RAN Enquiry also decided that the CANBERRA was not torpedoed. Rear Admiral Crutchley disagreed with the latter finding.

[Kevin Denlay]

Originally Posted by patroclus

It is possible. The USN found it hard enough to sink her! From the RAN's point of view, it would have been worth a try.

While it may have been theoretically possible to tow her there I don't think the IJN flyers would have 'allowed' it. After all, they killed little old Jarvis, a simple DD, on her way out of the battle area, just imagine what tempting a target Canberra crawling along at a few knots under tow would have made.

Originally Posted by patroclus

The Enquiry found that the list was at least partially caused by the flooding of the magazines.

And not the first instance where this has been caused by same. Damned if you don't, damned if you do.

Originally Posted by patroclus

Incidently, the Enquiry also decided that most of the shell hits were 5.5".

I was not aware of that 'finding'. Must say, cant quite see 5.5's passing through amidships. I mean, she was slightly armoured but not that light I would have thought.

[Tiornu]

The 5.5in guns did not have a genuine AP shell, so you'd need a complete dud to get through anything substantial, like a hull.

[Kevin Denlay]

Just asked the following question of a friend that was out with Ballard when he surveyed the wrecks off Guadalcanal, inc Canberra.

QUESTION

By the way, when you were out in G'canal do you recall if you guys saw any/many torp hits to Canberra?

REPLY

Nope.

We only saw shell holes in her port side. The fact that some of her forward superstructure had collapsed to starboard may well indicate a torpedo hit in the hull below that, but we did not think to drop below the main deck level on the starboard side to take a look, either there or amidships in the vicinity of the boiler rooms. Rich Frank and I regularly kick ourselves for not thinking to do so, as we had plenty of time with the ROV ("Scorpio") to do it.

[patroclus]

Originally Posted by Kevin Denlay

While it may have been theoretically possible to tow her there I don't think the IJN flyers would have 'allowed' it. After all, they killed little old Jarvis, a simple DD, on her way out of the battle area, just imagine what tempting a target Canberra crawling along at a few knots under tow would have made.

That may be an overly pessimistic view. The damaged CHICAGO, three destroyers, five minesweepers, six transports and five cargo ships departed at 1500 the following afternoon for Noumea. AUSTRALIA, HOBART, SAN JUAN and nine destroyers with eleven transports and cargo vessels departed at 1700, also for Noumea. I do not know the speed of advance of these forces but CHICAGO had been limited to 10 knots earlier in the day. They all reached their destination without air attack.

A little luck would be needed but it would have been worth a try.

[Kevin Denlay]

Originally Posted by patroclus

That may be an overly pessimistic view.

No, in my opinion that is simply a realistic view, rather than what I would class as a wishful thinking view.

Originally Posted by patroclus

I do not know the speed of advance of these forces but CHICAGO had been limited to 10 knots earlier in the day. They all reached their destination without air attack. A little luck would be needed but it would have been worth a try.

10 knots is a great deal faster than what a towing speed could have attained. So a lot more than a little luck would have been needed, something more akin to a miracle actually (to get either C'berra or Astoria towed to safety). The tow and the towee would have been sitting ducks to say the least.

[patroclus]

Originally Posted by Kevin Denlay

No, in my opinion that is simply a realistic view, rather than what I would class as a wishful thinking view.


10 knots is a great deal faster than what a towing speed could have attained. So a lot more than a little luck would have been needed, something more akin to a miracle actually (to get either C'berra or Astoria towed to safety). The tow and the towee would have been sitting ducks to say the least.

Well, it would not have been a picnic.

We are obviously not going to agree on this matter!

[Kevin Denlay]

Originally Posted by patroclus

We are obviously not going to agree on this matter!

That's affirmative!

[SeaToby]

Someone mentioned the Americans blew it. Unfortunately the admiral in charge was British/Australian who divided the defensive forces, and then failed to be in the battle. Many of the British ships of the same class sunk quickly after a torpedo hit, US naval historian Samuel E. Morison doubts the Canberra would have lasted as long as she did with a torpedo hit.

Don't forget the Americans lost three heavy cruisers during the same battle, and a fourth had its bow blown off. Frankly, there is enough blame to pin on everyone involved. None of the allied ships were ready for battle. Give the Japanese a little credit for having exercised for night battles.

[patroclus]

Originally Posted by SeaToby

Someone mentioned the Americans blew it. Unfortunately the admiral in charge was British/Australian who divided the defensive forces, and then failed to be in the battle. Many of the British ships of the same class sunk quickly after a torpedo hit, US naval historian Samuel E. Morison doubts the Canberra would have lasted as long as she did with a torpedo hit.
.

The decision to divide the force was taken by Rear Admiral Crutchley with reluctance and in the absence of a viable alternative and was approved by the Flag Officer in Command (American). Crutchley wasn't in the battle because he had been ordered to a conference by the American commander.

No British ships of this class were sunk by torpedo.

[Kevin Denlay]

Originally Posted by SeaToby

Unfortunately the admiral in charge was British/Australian who divided the defensive forces, and then failed to be in the battle.

For the record, Admiral Crutchley was British not Australian, although he was commanding from an Australian ship at the time (HMAS Australia).

However, it seems he (and others on the scene that night) may still have been under the same ill-informed belief as the British Admiral Layton, of Singapore 'fame', who made what may well have been the least prophetic statement of the war when he signaled the Admiralty on 13 Feb 1942 that ".......Evidence is accumulating which seems to confirm pre-war impressions that Japanese ships do not take kindly to night fighting...............We should exploit this feature of Japanese to the utmost and our policy should be to seek night actions by every means..........................”.(Signal of 1302Z/13/2/42, Hostages To Fortune, page 29)

One would have thought that by then, over two months after HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse had been sunk by a completely underestimated Japanese air arm, that the powers that be may have came to realise that their prewar assumptions about the Japanese were, shall we say, inaccurate.

Some months later it seems they still hadn't quite come to grips with it.

It should come as no surprise then that we, the Allies, were completely unprepared that night off Guadalcanal.

Boy, did we learn the hard way. But learn we did!

[Norsky]

The racial stereotype for the Japanese / Asians was so prevalent pre-war from many Western powers.

Too many good men were lost as a result.

I do wonder, had the Kaiser's Imperial German Navy from WW I replaced the Japanese as the adversary here, and been updated, strengthened as had the Japanese Navy in the intervening years, would there have been the same racial stereotype mistakes made?

I do not think that would be the case. A European navy would not have received the same derision that the Japanese received.

[kookaburra]

Originally Posted by Norsky

The racial stereotype for the Japanese / Asians was so prevalent pre-war from many Western powers.

Too many good men were lost as a result.

I do wonder, had the Kaiser's Imperial German Navy from WW I replaced the Japanese as the adversary here, and been updated, strengthened as had the Japanese Navy in the intervening years, would there have been the same racial stereotype mistakes made?

I do not think that would be the case. A European navy would not have received the same derision that the Japanese received.

I do agree. The Battle of Tsushima should have earned the IJN greater respect pre-WW11.

Thanks too to all for the very informed discussion that has been taking place on this thread, which I've been following with great interest. I was looking for a way in, but could simply not match or add to the detail being given. K.

[dennis a feary]

Hallo all in the Colonies `down under'. Find here photo (not too good I am afraid) of your good ship HMAS CANBERRA taken in Aden 1941. Sadly lost in Coral Sea Battle.
Have a pic of HMAS AUCKLAND to post - will be looking for a place to put it !!

Sadsac

[kookaburra]

Originally Posted by dennis a feary

Hallo all in the Colonies `down under'. Find here photo (not too good I am afraid) of your good ship HMAS CANBERRA taken in Aden 1941. Sadly lost in Coral Sea Battle.
Have a pic of HMAS AUCKLAND to post - will be looking for a place to put it !!

Sadsac

Dennis, thank you for the pic of HMAS Canberra - I assume you've been celebrating the cricket! Well done England, comprehensively outplayed us for 4 1/2 of the five days for an historic Lord's victory. Flintoff today was awesome (BTW, my cricket moments on the 'Cruisers of Australia' thread have ceased due to a kind invitation to move them to Shore Leave - so it's not sour grapes). Anyway, I'd run out of appropriate pics of sinking Australian cruisers.

Dennis, I've done the best I can here to bring your pic of HMAS Canberra in Aden back out of the mists.

Ah... just one or two things for the record. Canberra was lost at the Battle of Savo Island, Aug 9 1942, not the Battle of the Coral Sea - she was not present there.

I assume from what you've said on the NZ thread that this pic was taken from HMS (neither HMAS nor HMNZS)
Auckland, an Egret Class sloop sunk in the Med 20miles north east of Tobruk on June 24, 1941.

Auckland and sloop HMAS Parramatta were escorting the petrol tanker Pass of Balmaha when they were attacked by three formations of German and Italian aircraft - 48 according to the Allied count. The planes concentrated on Auckland thinking she was a cruiser, and she was direct hit on the stern almost immediately and soon enveloped in flames, and hit by three more bombs according to the Italian reports.

The petrol tanker was near missed and disabled. Parramatta fought on downing several planes and eventually rescuing 162 survivors from Auckland who were being machine-gunned in the water. The destroyer HMAS Waterhen arrived and took Pass of Balmaha in tow almost to Tobruk, before being relieved by a Harbour vessel.

Well, that's it. Here's your pic again Dennis. Well done England.

[dennis a feary]

Well done Kookaburra, great `tidying up' !
Yes, re `Test'. England got fed up with `LETTING' the Ozzies win, so we thought about time we did `summat' - Er Hum !!
Re AUCKLAND being HMAS or HMNZS - well what can I say - I followed the caption on the photo - `believe `arf you see & nowt you `er' - should have followed that saying !!
The pic(s) were taken from BOTLEA a `Q' ship - more of her later.

Sadsac

[Kevin Denlay]

Here is another not so common (to me) pic of Canberra

[astraltrader]

I have your picture as well as others virtually identical to it - probably taken from the same ship.

[alanbenn]

Can't say I've noticed this shot of Canberra anywhere else so I'll post it here to provide a different shot of her.

Regards
Alan