The Burial of Australia's First Flagship HMAS Australia
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2013
- This week Sydney is celebrating the centenary of the 1913 Fleet Review. On the 4th of October 1913 HMAS Australia led the fleet consisting of HMAS Encounter, HMAS Melbourne, HMAS Warrego, HMAS Parramatta and HMAS Yarra steaming through the heads of Sydney Harbour. HMAS Australia, an Indefatigable-class battle cruiser, was The Royal Australian Navy's first flagship. A year later it was serving Australia in World War I. After distinguished service HMAS Australia was decommissioned and eventually scuttled off Sydney Heads on April 12 1924. This film records the last moments of that important piece of Australian Naval history.
- ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
Brilliant footage of J and A Brown's tugs St Olaves and Champion pulling the bow.
Great to see this clip. HMAS Australia was scuttled in the "Ship's Graveyard", a considerable distance off the coast of Sydney in 1924. The water depth in this area can be up to 300 metres and was used to dump all manner of things as well as vessels. A deep-sea telecommunications sonar survey found a wreck in 1991 which was confirmed in 2011 as that of HMAS Australia. The discovery confirmed that HMAS Australia was not near any of the three reported/speculated positions.
I would have liked to see her preserved in a museum in Sydney beside hmas vampire, and each Anzac Day she could perform a gun salute with her 12 inch guns.
It would've been nice if it was preserved but IIRC the terms of the Washington naval treaty didn't permit this and if it was to be disposed of by scuttling it it had to be done in water that was sufficiently deep to prevent it being salvaged.
@@thegermanempire489 I'm not familiar with the details, but the Brits scuttled a swathe of battleships and battlecruisers due to the Washington Treaty, so it was hardly an either/or. Combined with the large reduction in the RAN's budget post-WWI, I wouldn't be surprised if it was at least in part an economic decision made in Australia.
@@thegermanempire489 The RN scuttled a great deal of their fleet. Everyone had to because of the Washington Naval Treaty. For the RAN to keep HMAS Australia we would have had to scuttle the entire cruiser fleet. Plus post war it was costly having a battlecruiser fully manned after Australias wartime losses.
@@nicholasmaude6906 which is fucking bullshit because Britain got to keep all of there capital ships, she was the only capital ship Australia had
Thank you for posting this very interesting and poignant footage. I have a large photographic portrait of HMAS Australia with a heavy wooden frame made of teak from her deck. I understand that a number of these were produced.
It is a pity they weren't able to control the flooding in a way that it would've sunk upright and not rollover.
Amen to that. I would love to see the underwater footage of HMAS Australia in her present stage.
2013 Fleet Review in Sydney this week. Led by HMAS Australia in 1913. Seen here being scuttled in 1924. Australia's first Flagship.
Inevitable - but what a shame! Imagine it leading this weekend's review into the harbour... Australia's possession of this battleship actually deterred German bombardments of ports on the east coast.
Is there any footage of HMAS Australia II ?
I don't understand why the 12 inch guns weren't salvaged for coastal defense.
The 1922 Washington Naval Treaty required a reduction in Naval capacities in order to prevent an escalation of arms.
Hmmm, and hows that worked out for the rest of the world.
where i can get the copy right about this footage
Contact us here: access@nfsa.gov.au
ty
just imagine if we had her during ww2, she could have been the flag ship of Abdacom, id much rather see her sink in battle, then be scuttled, atleast she wasnt scrapped
It should be raised if that's possible
Would 8 12 inch guns, and 26 knots, modified to Oil burning, radar added, not been a useful vessel in early ww2?
TommyTwobats British stopped producing 12 inch gun rounds, plus the cost of her being fully remodeled was about the same cost of buying the new HMAS Australia.
Alfredo although the British stopped the Americans did not and they had 12inch gunned ships in ww2 we could have got the shells from them or made them ourselves.
It's too bad the HMAS Australia was scuttled. She would have been very useful to the RAN during World War 2.
No, she wouldn't have. While people like to moan about it, the treaty did us a favour, for two reasons. Firstly, the RN was already ceasing the production of 12 inch shells, so we wouldn't have had any ammunition for it. The RANs financial position at the time was such that they had the ship in and out of reserve so they could run the rest of the fleet; as that single ship used as many as to run the entire rest of the Navy; and to start making already obsolete 12 inch shells in Australia was out of the question. Secondly, by WW2, there were NONE of those era (first battlecruisers/battleships) left. ALL the ships upgraded for WW2 were of newer designs (Renown class BC/QE BB). So we were forced to get rid of an already obsolete ship; THAT forced us to re-equip with modern heavy cruisers (Australia/Canberra). If they hadn't forced us - we would have had Australia in and out of reserve; by 1930 hopelessly obsolete, and then too late to build heavy cruisers that would be viable/ready in time. Look; it is always sad when a ship goes (I have decommissioned a fair few in my time) but reality is that it forced us to do the best thing. Won't stop people complaining that we "should have kept everything" though.
Umm no we could of built our own 12 inch shells or we could of upgraded it into a battleship and replace the 12 inch guns with 14 or 15inch and completely rework the ship as it would of been refitted before ww2 if it did not get scuttled and it could of been the flagship of abdcom and it could of helped us win the battle of java so in short words fuck the British and fuck the Americans cause they didn’t even listen to there own treaty and started building the New Mexico class battleships along with the Colorado and the Pennsylvania class
She would have been 30years old by the time Japan declared war. The “Indefatigable” design wasn’t the RN’s best effort by some margin and she would have been helpless against Japanese airpower (as were all battleships).
A symbolic loss? Definitely. Material loss? No. Her time had come and passed
Shouldn't have been scuttled, it was the only Battlecruiser the Australian Navy has ever owned, and the only one protecting our area. Britain should have scrapped another of their numerous old crates. Yet another example of Australia not standing up for themselves.
How about the HMAS Shropshire
Britain literally scuttled every 12-inch battleship and battlecruiser they had - every single vessel Britain kept was substantially more capable than Australia. Keeping Australia in place of even one of the Revenge class would have been strategic bone-headedness, and for the RAN budgetary madness.
What fool would sink the flagship and now we have fools that buy ships from Spain with no aircraft couldn't even build them in Australia
Australian vessel in name only. Was under the command of the British in a terrible useless war that had nothing to do with Australian national interest.