- Author
- Bradford, John
- Subjects
- Ship histories and stories, History - WW2
- Tags
-
- RAN Ships
- HMAS Hobart I, HMAS Yarra II
- Publication
- March 1998 edition of the Naval Historical Review (all rights reserved)
The 429/205 ledger book covers entries and correspondence relating to the fate of YARRA’s personnel, entry 147 stating;
‘Cutting from Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) of March 4th, 1947 regarding decorations and danger money to personnel of HMAS YARRA’.
This particular correspondence file was initiated by the Naval Men’s Association of Victoria (NMAV) writing to the Minister for the Navy; Mr. W. J. F. Riordan on 11th March, 1947. It was forwarded to the Naval Board by the Minister, and was responded to in a Minute dated 25th March, 1947 by CNS/1st Naval Member ADM. Sir Louis K. Hamilton, RN. Again, the contents of the NMAV letter and CN’s Minute are not known, but the latter’s response could not have over-impressed the NMAV, who received their reply via the Minister in early April.
The SMH article referred to above appeared on the front page in ‘Column 8’ and read;
‘Five years ago today HMAS YARRA died.
She was sunk off Java while trying to protect a convoy from a Japanese squadron. The YARRA was just a sloop – an absurd little ship with 134 (sic) men aboard, with which LCDR. Rankin engaged the Japanese squadron while the convoy sped for their lives.
Rankin died with 121 (sic) of his comrades. The Minister for the Australian Navy said his action paralleled that of the Commander (sic) of the JERVIS BAY, which blazed defiant guns at the SCHEER.
Commander (sic) of the JERVIS BAY got a posthumous Victoria Cross.
But for reasons best known to the authorities, Rankin didn’t. As far as I know, not even the thirteen survivors got danger money’.
SMH editions for the next fortnight or so were checked to see whether this item had later generated any correspondence in the ‘Letters to the Editor’ column; unfortunately this does not appear to have been the case.
After visiting the AA (M), I requested Navy Office in Canberra to conduct a search of relevant NHS records. The Director of Public Information, DPI-N, subsequently came up with three brief handwritten statements located on an `Action record’ relating to a `Reported Loss of Ships – 1942′ file ((‘Reports on loss of HM Ships SIANG WO, GRASSHOPPER, RAHMAN, ANKING, STRONGHOLD and WO KWANG, HMAS YARRA, RFA FRANCOL and MMS51’. Series No. MP1185/8, Item No. 1932/2/214.)). The statements were:
- Against DCNS (the Deputy Chief of Naval Staff), Capt. Herbert J. Buchanan, DSO, RAN, `has sufficient recognition been given to the gallant action of HMAS YARRA? On a smaller scale the incident is comparable with HMS JERVIS BAY. DNI please comment’. 16 Nov. 45). (But Director Naval Intelligence, CMDR. Rupert B. M. Long, chose not to comment).
- Against 2nd NM (the second Naval Member) – (CDRE. Henry A. Showers, RAN) `I do not know of any recognition of the work done by HMAS YARRA either when rescuing survivors from HMT EMPRESS OF ASIA, or at her final action’. (24 Nov. 45)
- Against 1st NM -(the first Naval Member, and Chief of Naval Staff) – ADM. Sir Louis H. K. Hamilton, DSO, RN) ‘I can only conclude that my predecessor examined this question fully in 1942’. (28 Nov. 45)
Shortly before Rankin took over as YARRA’s CO from CMDR Wilfred H. Harrington, RAN, in early February 1942, the latter had written in his ROP of the 5th February, action off Singapore, suggesting a gun crew should receive `some recognition of their conduct’. Only one man of the gun’s crew – of which LCDR. Francis E. Smith, YARRA’s 1st Lieutenant, was in charge – survived the war.
Hamilton’s indifferent response to the queries of Buchanan and Showers sealed any likelihood of Harrington ever being approached by the Naval Board over his commendation of YARRA’s gun crew; equally unlikely is that Harrington ever pursued the matter with the Naval Board after the war.
That nothing was done, either in 1942 or after the war when a `wind-up’ of outstanding claims for decorations and awards was promulgated, viz: `it is desired that so far as possible consideration should be given to the records of Officers and Ratings throughout the (European) war, and that the claims of ships that for one reason or another have not figured in previous periodic lists should be duly weighed’ ((Minute from Naval Liaison Officer, London to ACNB, dated 28th June 1945. Series No. MP1185/9. Item No. 448/201/2076.)) was extremely disappointing. Equally disappointing is the realisation that had Harrington been able to use the standard RN `Recommendation for Decoration or Mention’ form (see discussion below), then any recommendations in his ROP would have had to be placed on a more formal footing and could not have been so readily overlooked or ignored.