Jump to content

Talk:Royal Australian Navy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Surgeonsmate (talk | contribs) at 03:23, 10 January 2006 (→Biggest loss). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

needs some info on the tsunami releif effort, plus the ppl who died in Nias The bellman 10:51, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Australian_Navy&oldid=34571101"