Military Myths Defeated | Brand

Military Myths Defeated

Phone: +61 448 440 028

Add/Update information

Reviews

Tags

• Other
• Brand
• Website

25.01.2022 The latest volume in Michael Claringbould's sensational Pacific Adversaries series is now available. Follow this link to check out some sample pages: https://avonmorebooks.com.au/?page=3&id=132

24.01.2022 Out in February....

22.01.2022 Wow,yes,this new book just arrived too!only a wk or so from Melbourne? Will enjoy your work immensely,Tom Lewis

21.01.2022 In the NT News today: In defence of Darwin JACLYN HOLLAND... THE Bombing of Darwin may have taken place almost 80 years ago, but there are still a number of scandals to unpack from the event, according to local military historian Dr Tom Lewis. His newest book, Eagles over Darwin, revolves around one such scandal the fact there wasn’t a single Australian fighter plane in the air to defend Darwin on the day of the raid which claimed over 200 lives. There wasn’t one modern fighter plane flying in defence of Northern Australia, Dr Lewis said. It was pretty hopeless of the government of the day. The book describes the stories of the 49th Fighter Group, a squadron of American pilots who came to defend Australia in the 10 months between this first air raid and when Australian defence planes finally arrived in January 1943. Dr Lewis said the actions and sacrifices of these American pilots saved Australia from invasion. Britain was fighting for its life in 1942, Singapore had fallen and we were on our own, he said. If it wasn’t for the Americans, Australia would have gone under. This is Dr Lewis’ 16th published book on military history, building on previous works exploring Darwin’s experience of WWII such as Carrier Attack Darwin 1942 and The Empire Strikes South. Dr Lewis’ book is the latest on military history for the prolific writer who has spent decades researching Darwin’s involvement in World War II. In one of his more recent books, Dr Lewis delved into the history of Teddy Sheean titled Honour Denied Teddy Sheean, A Tasmanian Hero. Sheean was famously depicted in a painting being chained to a machine gun as the Japanese planes flew over Darwin. In August last year the Governor-general David Hurley announced the Queen had approved a posthumous award of the Victoria Cross to Ordinary Seaman Sheean. He was the first member of the navy to receive the honour. -o-o-O-o-o- Dr Tom Lewis with his new book on the American fighter pilots who defended Darwin after the bombing of 1942. Picture Glen Campbell Book tells how US saved Australia after 1942

20.01.2022 14 May 1943 - The Australian Hospital Ship ‘Centaur’ is sunk off the coast of Queensland, by a Japanese submarine. NFX125936 Sister Myrle Mary Eileen Moston AAN...S, 2/3 Australian Hospital Ship Centaur, killed in action at sea after the Centaur was sunk by a torpedo from a Japanese submarine on 14 May 1943. Of the 322 crew and staff, only 64 survived, including Sister Ellen Savage, the only survivor from twelve nursing sisters. See more

20.01.2022 Front page of the Hobart Mercury!

18.01.2022 A few of my own pix of the midget submarine display in the Navy museum in Sydney; a graphic of the interior of these vessels, and a chart of the route of the th...ree on this night of 31 May 1942. All three were lost in the attack, although M-24 was not found outside the harbour for many decades afterwards. I thought I’d post this from a few years back when we were remembering the 75th anniversary of the first air raid on Australia. Events of WWII the midget submarine attack on Sydney By The Territory Remembers historian Tom Lewis Australia went to war in 19139, but events happened mostly on the other side of the world. Then in January 1942 Darwin was attacked by submarines, and a month later by aircraft carriers. But in the southern states of Australia, life continued as normal. The concept of blackouts at night, to deny the enemy easy navigation to the target, was alien and inconvenient. Navy vessels returning to Australia always contained hundreds of amazed seaman who could not understand why the nation wasn’t taking the war seriously. One event more than any other changed that thinking. In May 1942 Sydney Harbour was attacked by three two-man midget submarines of the Japanese Navy. Launched at night from mother submarines outside the port, these small but dangerous boats slipped around the uncompleted net across the harbour entrance, and attacked shipping with torpedoes. The accommodation ship HMAS Kuttabul was sunk with the loss of 21 lives. All three submarines were lost to the Japanese. One was sunk by depth charges from the furious counterattacks launched from vengeful warships, and the second was caught in the net on the way out and its two-man crew committed suicide. The last made it out of the harbour but failed to rendezvous with its mother-vessel. It remained lost for decades, finally found in 2006 several kilometres offshore with its hatches open and the crew gone. No-one knows what happened to them, but they are likely still inside the wreck, as the boarding ladder out of the conning tower hatch is still in the fully compacted position. It was a mighty shock to the southern cities. Within weeks blackouts had been announced, and many precautions were taken, costing much money and time all of which meant less of both to commit to defeating the enemy. The raids in that way were a further success. In follow-up events of interest, the senior officer in charge of the port, Rear Admiral Muirhead-Gould, arranged for the recovered submariners to be cremated with full naval honours at the Eastern Suburbs Crematorium. He said later: It must take courage of the very highest order to go out in a thing like that steel coffin,Theirs was a courage that is not the propertyof any one nation: it is the courage shared by the brave men of our own countries as well as of the enemy. Muirhead-Gould was later criticized for his praise of the enemy. But these were early days of the war, without the horrors of prisoner-of-war camp stories making it home. On 8 June, a week later, two Japanese submarines shelled Sydney and Newcastle. Although the artillery fire killed no-one, it was part of the transformation of the southern part of Australia into a realization we were at war. In the north, of course, we were under the full reality of weekly air raids.

18.01.2022 Time to highlight one of the lesser known events of the first air raid on Darwin. Outside the harbour, a brave flight crew of an American aircraft fought and ...were both shot down AND sunk on 19 February 1942. The morning of 19 February saw five PBY Catalinas seaplanes present in Darwin harbour, moored at the southern end of the harbour near USS William B Preston, their tender. At 0800 two of the big twin-engined machines were launched on patrol. Aircraft 18, piloted by Lieutenant Thomas Moorer and Ensign W Mosley, was scheduled to patrol 675 nautical miles north to Ambon. Aircraft 10 was allocated a sector much closer, but covering an east-west arc from the Tanimbar Islands to Timor. Moorer’s Catalina was destined to meet the carrier strike force which was inbound to Darwin on virtually a reciprocal heading. Some 50 miles north of Melville Island, at 0920, Moorer encountered an unknown freighter, the Philippine blockade runner, Florence D. The PBY began descending from 2,000 feet to 600 feet to investigate the unknown vessel. One of the Zeroes from the aircraft carrier Kaga’s aircraft was detached from its group to deal with the PBY. The pilot, Yoshikazu Nagahama, pounced on the lumbering flying boat, which presented an easy target, although defended by two forward-firing nose machineguns, and two waist guns in blisters. Gunner Lebaron was able to return fire from the starboard waist gun. But Nagahama, reporting later, said he hit home with his first strike. The port engine was hit and a fire started, fuelled by gasoline pouring from one of the holed fuel tanks in the wing. As the burning liquid ran down the fuselage, the port blister melted. The flying boat was crippled. Both pilots had been wounded, along with radiomen Thomas and Folmer. The plane was losing altitude fast. Control was difficult as much of the port wing was burning. Despite these difficulties Moorer was able to successfully ditch the flying boat, albeit at high airspeed, bouncing off the ocean three times before stopping. The main life raft was shot full of holes, so instead a smaller four-man raft was dragged out and launched through the navigator’s hatch. However, the men dared not deploy into it because of the possibility of strafing. The PBY was on fire and there were patches of burning fuel on the ocean. However the Zero did not linger and the survivors managed to get out and inflate the raft. Although four of the men were wounded, the entire crew of eight had survived. The survivors in the raft could still see, high above them, formations of attackers en route to Darwin. Fortunately, in about 30 minutes, a passing freighter, the US-hired Florence D came to their aid, and they were picked up. Seeking shelter from the carrier group, the ship turned for Darwin. But later in the afternoon the freighter was attacked by Val divebombers from the Hiryu. Hit by three bombs, the ship quickly began sinking. Three crew and one of the Catalina airmen were killed in the strike, but using the ship’s lifeboats the survivors managed to make it to Bathurst Island, where they were later rescued. Moorer went on to a successful career in the Navy, surviving the war, and later commanding US naval forces in Vietnam. The Florence D was found in 2008 by a local diver, Jim Miles, although reputedly another local, Wayne Keeping, had been fishing the wreck and even diving it for about 20 years. It lies about ten kilometres from Bathurst Island’s closest point. Given the distance from the reported attack and sinking site, it is therefore the case the ship did not settle to the seabed straight away, but drifted for some distance. Florence D is now a protected shipwreck under the Australian Historic Shipwrecks Act. -o-o-O-o-o- Extracted from Carrier Attack (Avonmore Books, 2013, by Tom Lewis and Peter Ingman) Captions: Admiral Tom Moorer USN, shot down near Darwin on 19 Feb 1942, listens as the operation of a 50 cal machinegun aboard a helicopter is explained to him in the Vietnam War (USN) A RAAF Catalina at Doctors Gully, Darwin, in WWII (RAAF) A Consolidated PBY 6A Catalina of the USN in flight. (USN) A Consolidated PBY 6A Catalina of the USN in flight. (USN)

17.01.2022 Today is the anniversary of the loss of HMAS Sydney in World War II What the wrecks of the Sydney and Kormoran tell us about the battle By Tom Lewis... On 19 November 1941 the cruiser HMAS Sydney, the pride of Australia’s Navy, was sunk in battle in mysterious circumstances that were never satisfactorily explained until the 2008 discovery of the wreck, lying near her antagonist, the German raider Kormoran. On the anniversary of the sinking, author Dr Tom Lewis explains the significance of the wreck find.and how it finalised the story of the deaths of 645 men in our country’s most devastating naval battle. Discovered in 2008, photographs of HMAS Sydney and the raider Kormoran, resting on the seabed of the Indian Ocean off the Western Australian coast, tell us more of the story of the end of the light cruiser in her final fight. Kormoran’s wreck was found first in the search. She is in several pieces, and this is consistent with the story the survivors told of how they wired up their cargo of depth charges to blow the ship apart once she had been abandoned. She is in the same place roughly described to their captors several times. The enemy Kormoran was a surface raider. This concept was well developed by many navies. Indeed, coincidentally the first Sydney had destroyed the raider Emden in WWI, which was also engaged in this role. Often disguised as a merchant ship from another nation, the surface raiders were powerful vessels armed with a myriad of guns and torpedoes, usually hidden behind screens that would disguise the real superstructure of the ship. They would roam the oceans, meeting fuel tankers at designated points and dates. The Kormoran, under the capable Captain Detmers, had accounted for many tons of enemy shipping in her cruise so far. Indeed, if she had survived her last battle, she would have devastated western and southern Australian ports. Evenly armed, the Kormoran was nevertheless not as formidable a combatant as the Sydney, whose better gun direction and range should have seen her stand off and effectively hold the German at bayonet length, to use a simple analogy, until her identity was assured. Sydney a proud history One of the most baffling aspects of the end of the Sydney was that she had done so well in World War II up until her end. Deployed to the Mediterranean, she had fought two Italian cruisers, both brand-new and the fastest ships in the world, and together with her destroyer escorts had sunk one the Bartolomeo Colleoni and driven the other off. She had sunk the Italian destroyer Espero, and participated successfully in scores of naval and anti-air fights. Returning to Australia, the pride of the fleet was given a new captain and many new crew members, and deployed to guard the west Australian coast. The final fight On 19 November 1941, off the mid-western coast of Australia, Kormoran encountered Sydneyby sighting her smoke, and turned away. She had a fair idea of what she would up against: an Australian warship, and probably a cruiser. Captain Detmers was working a ruse, flying a perfectly legitimate Dutch flag, and he tried to plot a course to ensure the afternoon sun would blind his opponents. Slowly the Sydneyclosed the range, and began signalling. The flashing lights and flags used between the two vessels could tell both a straightforward story and a legitimate one. In disguise, Detmers was lying, of course, and he aimed to confuse matters as much as possible. His signal flags were poorly hoisted, and deliberately wrapped around their halliards. The signalling continued, with Sydneyrepeating her messages, and Detmers continuing to steam for advantage. Eventually Sydney asked for the secret sign which a Dutch ship in Australian waters would be expected to know. Detmers knew the game was up, but by this time Sydneywas close, too close and surprisingly badly placed, according to German accounts, parallel to her potential enemy, instead of being off a stern quarter where an opponent’s gun power would be minimised. They would also have expected an overflight by now from the Australian’s aircraft, but none came. Kormoran’s ship’s company would have been agonisingly tense, after hours at their battle stations, in many cases hiding behind flat wooden screens disguising her weather deck guns. The German captain knew the game was up. He ordered the Dutch flag down, the German flags up, and commanded Commence firing! The screens were dropped; a well-prepared initial salvo fired to devastating effect hitting Sydney very effectively around the bridge and forward guns, and both ships began to fire their main gunnery at each other, along with myriads of smaller weapons such as machineguns, which due to the close range could now be used. According to Kormoran's gunnery officer, Lieutenant Fritz Skeries, over the course of the next 55 minutes, Kormoran fired 450 rounds from her main armament of 5.9-inch guns, and several hundred from her anti-aircraft batteries. Both ships fired torpedoes: the Germans claiming a hit, while the Australian’s missed. Skeries commented in the final stages of the 55 minute battle that the Sydney was being constantly hit by gunfire from the raider. Sydney, crippled, limped off to the south-east, on fire, with a flickering glow showing her presence until around midnight, some eight hours after the action had begun. The battle ended with the Kormoran’s people taking to their boats, but not without significant loss of life from their burning ship, and not before setting explosives to detonate once they were clear. Over the next days they were captured at sea or on the WA coast. Their stories were tallied, but suspicion was immediate. The Australian ship should have won the battle, but here she was completely lost with all hands. Over the next decades stories circulated and grew: were Japanese forces involved, weeks before their strike on Pearl Harbor? Had the Kormorancommitted war crimes by firing under false flags, and then despatching any witnesses? Books were published; claims made, including of lost documents unearthed, log books found, and even wrecks found. Government inquiries were made. But in early 2008, the finding of the shipwrecks by the renowned David Mearns, working with the HMAS Sydney Search organisation, and the RAN, signalled an instant focussing of all of the theories, and the arrival of a moment of truth. What do the wrecks tell us? Significantly, the wreck of Sydney is to the south-east of the German raider. This tallies exactly with survivors’ accounts of the Australian ship’s final movements. She lies 12.2 nautical miles around 20 kilometres from the Kormoran. That is consistent with the German survivors’ stories of seeing her burning light suddenly extinguished. At that distance they would have been able to see the light: it would not have been over the horizon. The Sydney wreck is upright, which makes identification of various parts of the ship easier. The first and most important detail is that the bow of the warship is largely broken away. This confirms the German account of her being torpedoed in that area during the fight. The rest of the wreck does not bear signs of the massive explosive damage which can be inflicted by a torpedo. This puts paid to many of the wilder and more fanciful theories that Sydneywas hit by strikes from a Japanese submarine, although it must be reiterated that the 1999 Federal Parliamentary Inquiry also dismissed such illogical allegations. The bridge structure of the cruiser has received heavy punishment. This is again consistent with the German accounts of the action. Stating they scored initial strikes on the command sections of Sydney, thus rendering the Australian ship much more ineffective than she might have normally been. German accounts speak of firing around 450 rounds from their main six-inch armament, and given the abilities of such weapons in the hands of trained WWII crews, we could expect around 150 of these to hit. Joined by the Kormoran’s lesser anti-aircraft armament we can see that the Australian ship was very heavily battered: testimony to the close range at which the battle was begun. There is also heavy damage to the two forward turrets, indeed little of A turret’s housing remains, and this tallies with the story the Germans told of them knocking out around half of Sydney’s major armament, although the two aft turrets X and Y then managed to fight effectively, inflicting such damage on Kormoranthat she too eventually began sinking. The two forward turrets are trained to port, lending credence to the overall description of the battle which saw Kormoran approached on her own starboard side, with Sydney’s weapons trained against her. Later in the battle, when Sydneycrossed the stern of the German raider, the Kormoran’s people told how the Sydney’s guns, probably by now heavily damaged, could not traverse to starboard and fire effectively into their enemy. Moving back along the wreck, the first of the two funnels is missing, and there are no traces of the masts. Further along the hull we see the second of the two funnels is gone. There are traces of the aircraft crane and the circular mounting for the catapult. The torpedo tubes on both sides are missing. However, one set was found nearby, with two torpedoes missing out of four. In the late stages of the battle, Kormoran’s people said that Sydney fired these weapons against her. There is damage all along the wreck from the intense fire of the six-inch guns of the Kormoran, with holes in the hull below the weather deck. X and Y turrets too are trained to port. Two of the high-angle anti-aircraft guns are in place. One significant aspect of the wreck is that there is no trace of any of the life-saving equipment, such as boats and Carley floats, although some of the boats, battered and burnt, have been found on the seabed nearby. One question often asked of the fight between these two ships is to query how Kormoran managed to have over 300 survivors from her company, whereas Sydneylost all of her 645 crew. To my mind, this is logical enough; Sydney’s people would have had three main tasks: fighting the ship that is, firing its guns, torpedoes, and managing all of the engines and other machinery; second: coping with the floods initiated by the Kormorantorpedo strike; and finally, fighting the fires which started early in the battle. As a disciplined and capable ship’s company, who doubtless would have practised all of these skills often, they would have worked frantically across these thematic areas throughout the fight. As the conflict was broken off, and Kormoran’s people started to abandon their sinking, flaming ship, the Sydneydrifted off to the south-east. With the cruiser down by the bows, and on fire, the crew would have fought flames and flood to save their ship, but eventually, as the Kormoran’s survivors’ accounts from their lifeboats related, the cruiser’s flames suddenly disappeared. It is probably the case that the flooding suddenly became too much, and losing her buoyancy, the Australian ship quickly began a plunge to the seabed. Kormoran, which had surprised the Sydney, and was much less battered, had the comparative luxury of having her livesaving equipment largely intact. The sudden sinking of the Sydney would have meant that the majority of the ship’s company, at their action stations inside the hull, would have been trapped. Death would have been mercifully quick. For any crew members on the weather deck, they may have surfaced to survive in the open sea. But their lifesaving equipment, nine wooden boats, six canvas Carley floats, and other floatable items, was smashed and burnt by the intense battle that had been raging. Some of the remains tore free as the cruiser plunged, and these are the boats found. But for anyone surviving the death dive of the cruiser, there was little to support them in the ocean. And given that the ship was not overdue in her Australian port, and that the search for survivors was only precipitated by the Kormoran’s people being picked up on the coast and in their open boats, it is hardly surprising that HMAS Sydneyhad no survivors. Her 645 men, including six RAAF crew of her aircraft, and four civilians, went to the seabed with her. There is likely to be little further told from the wreck of the Sydney. Internal exploration of the wreck has been ruled out. But she did not explode; she does not show signs of attack by anything other than the German raider; the damage is consistent with the story they told, and the positions of both the cruiser and the Kormoranare consistent with the accounts of the battle. We will never know why Captain Joseph Burnett took his ship so close to what he probably thought was a harmless merchant vessel, but he was effectively, and likely legitimately, deceived by Captain Detmers. The finding of the Sydneytells us that the Kormoran survivors were right all along, and the images from the bottom of the sea put an end to one of Australia’s most enduring mysteries of the sea and World War II. -o-o-O-o-o- Dr Tom Lewis OAM dismissed the Sydney’s involvement with the Japanese submarine I-124, sunk outside Darwin harbour, in Darwin’s Submarine I-124, one of his 15 history books, and he made submissions to both Federal Government Inquiries on the Sydney’s loss. He served as a naval officer for 20 years. His latest book is Atomic Salvation: how the A-Bomb attacks saved the lives of 32 million people. HMAS Sydney (II) was a modified Leander class light cruiser. Sydney commissioned in the Royal Australian Navy in September 1935. Type Modified Leander Class Light Cruiser Displacement 6,830 tons Length 562 feet 3 inches Beam 56 feet 8 inches Builder Swan, Hunter and Wigham Richardson Ltd, Wallsend on Tyne, England Laid Down 8 July 1933 (as Phaeton) Launched 22 September 1934 (as Sydney), by Mrs Bruce, wife of the Australian High Commissioner, in the United Kingdom Speed 32.5 knots Armament 8 x 6-inch guns 4 x 4-inch guns 3 x 5mm machine guns 12 Lewis light machineguns 8 x 21 inch torpedo tubes (in two quadruple mounts) Painting by German naval artist Jochem Sachse depicts the sinking of both the Kormoran and HMAS Sydney A 5.9-inch gun in the Kormoran's forward hold pointing to starboard and aft of the beam (Courtesy Sydney Search) The wreck of HMAS Sydney (II) sunk in combat with the German raider Kormoran. The front of the gun housing of X turret, credited by the Germans with inflicting a mortal blow on the raider.(Courtesy David Mearns) Tracks of Sydney Kormoran from interrogators' reports (Tom Lewis Collection)

16.01.2022 Entry to the Thawley Prize, on a theme of or forever hold your peace. Dr Tom Lewis - second prize From where I sit in Darwin, the greatest Australian defence... scandal of the twentieth century was the lack of Spitfires in Darwin when the Japanese arrived. But it is surely going to be matched in the 21stcentury by the lack of submarines in Australian waters when the next need for efficient combat vessels gets here. It is only 2020 but for the next decade this growing debacle will dominate Australia’s defence. If it will be the lack of submarines, it will only be matched by a steady stream of disasters as they’re built. The concept of choosing an existing design in France, and changing the propulsion system from nuclear to diesel has never been done in the world before. That might be if they’re built. For not a metre of steel has been cut yet. It is not yet too late to stop this scandalous situation. What will you say in 12 years time, or fifteen? for the first is when the initial vessel could arrive, but it could very well be the second, around 2035, as a disastrous diesel boat limps our way. It could have been, you will think to yourself, nuclear. It should have been. Will you say something now, or will you forever hold your peace? The Japanese arrived over Darwin on 19 February 1942 to the sound of the thunder of 188 aircraft. Launched from four aircraft carriers, they were high level and dive bombers, and fighter aircraft. What rose to meet them were ten P-40 Kittyhawk fighters of the United States Army Air Forces. Ten? American? Yes indeed, for despite the Battle of Britain having been fought two years previously in 1940, there was not one modern fighter aircraft such as the Spitfire flying in defence of Darwin. Not one. If the 1930s and the onset of war saw inept planning, or the lack of it, characterise Australian defence thinking, then so too is the disaster of a replacement submarine for the Collins class dogging Australian defence planning, or the lack of it. The ineptness of this imbecility is manifold. About the only thing we’ve got right is replacing six submarines with twelve. The advantages of a submarine fleet for Australia is obvious, and correct. When these vessels leave port and submerge, they are one of the best deterrents to be had. Where are they? A potential enemy is faced with a circle, growing by the hour, of where that submarine has gone. He is faced with the fact it could be making for his own ports, to lay mines, torpedo his vessels, or launch cruise missiles against his land targets. He is forced to defend, and every hour and every dollar he spends on defence is the less he spends on attack. In 1940 the Australian government could have had the Spitfire, but instead it did nothing. It could have built them here, but instead it had built the Boomerang, a fighter so spectacularly bad it shot down no enemy aircraft at all in the war. In 2020 the Australian government could have nuclear submarines, but instead it is doing nothing. It signed up for the worst possible option. We chose a perfectly good nuclear submarine, built by the French, and we have demanded they take out the nuclear engine, and replace it with a diesel. And instead of taking the car out of the showroom for a test drive, we didn’t. The submarine we chose doesn’t exist; can’t be test-driven, and in fact won’t exist for over a decade. Yet we will pay for it up front. In fact, there were, and still are, alternatives to this folly. We could have bought into the perfect solution: the French, or indeed, closer allies, the British and the USA, all build nuclear-driven submarines. It as if, when presented with Spitfires in 1940, we insisted instead of their Merlin V12 engine they be replaced with a rotary powerplant from a World War One Sopwith Camel. Around half the range, and one third the speed. We doubtless would have demanded the enclosed heated cockpit of the Spitfire be swapped for an open-air cockpit, given our present-day thinking. The objections that have been thrown up in the face of the modern nuclear solution are ridiculous. But they are formidable obstacles, for the general public and our politicians, seem not to understand submarines. We don’t have a nuclear industry is one complaint. Well hello! Neither did the British when they decided to go nuclear in the 1960s with their Polaris boats. The nuclear engines were supplied by the US Navy, and even serviced by them too in the beginning. The general public won’t wear it is another. No-one has asked the general public, who seem far more sane than many think. Faced with proposals for a 50% electric car fleet in early 2019, the public had a ponder about the costs and reality of this folly, and quietly said no at a federal election. What is so unthinkable about 12 large sealed nuclear batteries operating our submarines? We’ve never done it before seems to be another straw man, with all of the capacity for resistance. There are many things the Royal Australian Navy never did before, and each time it stepped up with alacrity. In the early years of its existence prior to the Great War it acquired submarines, and operated them efficiently until in another exhibition of folly, it was made to get out of them. So when we were attacked in WWII the RAN had none. Would the greatest loss in our Navy’s history the sinking of HMAS Sydney and the loss of 645 lives by the German raider Kormoran have been prevented by having a submarine fleet in 1941? In the 1950s the RAN was asked to begin operating aircraft carriers, and it did so with distinction. In 1982 it was about to acquire a new generation of carriers, and was denied on the basis of cost, therefore denuding itself of a skill set the ability to operate aircraft off flight decks that rolled and pitched. Is this how our ability to acquire weapon systems is decided for reasons other than effectiveness? Apparently so much of what consumes the present submarine debate is related to jobs. Yet none of the presumed positions in South Australia have materialised yet, and it looks as if few will. It was a long year in 1942, with the United States our only fighter presence across northern Australia, where we faced air raids, week after week. Over 200 enemy air missions were recorded, many of them of fleets of bombers. The relentless Japanese killed thousands of people across northern Australia. The Australian public seem in equal ignorance about what is needed for us to be defended now. We need nuclear submarines, preferably built by the USA, and acquired, leased, or loaned into our Navy within five years. We should recruit several hundred submariners from overseas as well. We need to walk away from the French contract now. We have paid some small billions already. Pay some more small billions to leave it. For the project has been cited as around a quarter of a trillion dollars already around $250 billion. We have had few defence projects in our history that came in, around 15-20 years after they were decided, on cost and on time and on capacity. This defence disaster will run and run. You, the taxpayer, can have as much money wasted as you want to spend. Instead, you need to speak up, to your MPs, to yourselves, and to each other. You need to debate this, and get a better answer. Will you cancel our submarine project, or will you forever hold your peace? -o-o-O-o-o- Dr Lewis, a retired naval officer, is a military historian who is the author of 15 books. His latest work is Atomic Salvation: How the A-Bomb Saved the Lives of 32 Million People

16.01.2022 The build-process for our new submarines is disastrous By Dr Tom Lewis Of all of the possible solutions to Australia's need for submarines, a worse one could no...t have been made than the shambles we have ended up with. Consider the possibilities. A brave government advised honestly would have gone nuclear. I have already written on why in The Spectator. But if we are too gutless to go for the quality solution, and insist on remaining with diesel-electric engines, then the best thing to do would have been to make our choice rather like you buy a car. You walk into the showroom, and inspect the one you see before you. You seek out unbiased reviews. You take it for a test drive. You check the warranty. You go for some extras, if you can. The last thing you do is the reverse. Imagine going in and asking for a car they sell, but you want the electric engine ripped out and a diesel put in. And fuel tanks of course. If you have a sackful of money with you of course the car dealership will agree. Pay up front please. And monsieur, you say you are happy to wait 12 years for delivery. Of course! What makes it worse is this is a military machine we're talking about. It has to be armed. And being a submarine it has to be quiet. That's what submarines do - they hide, or die. Choosing the French submarine option isn't even as simple as changing out the engine in a car. Nuclear engines the proposed submarine is based on a successful French design don't need fuel tanks. But diesel engines do. That fuel gets burnt, naturally enough. So that means the fuel tanks get constantly emptied, and the balance of the submarine changes. This affects whether the submarine suddenly plunges purposefully to the seabed, or surfaces very embarrassingly in front of an enemy warship. Good luck with this, you French engineers. Incidentally, the French Navy, like the Brits and the US, only operate nuclear boats. Why is that? But if we did foolishly insist on diesel, we could have chosen various designs of submarines from around the world. The Japanese Soryu, for example. Or the German variants: 100 years of success has a lot to offer. But on all accounts resist the urge to fiddle. Would you behave that way with a new car? Australia has had a disastrous track record in building submarines. We had an excellent operational success story with the British Oberons in the 1960s-70s, but we didn't build them ourselves. They were built in the UK. Then our government insisted we build a new submarine in Australia, and along came the Collins. The Collins though wasn't just a Swedish design assembled here. It was fiddled with: more capability was needed for one thing. It had to go further and stay there longer. And not having built submarines before more complex machines than spaceships we had a lot of problems. Assistance from the USA and persistent excellent Australian engineering gradually overcame the situation. Not that the Collins has been a great success. If it was we might have built Collins Mk 2. Instead we have decided to go down the same path again. The French design will be a one-off just like the Collins. It will not have a proven design, already in the water, that we evaluated and tested just like the Collins. It will be expensive, at $50 billion for 12 subs...far more than buying proven designs which already exist. A Virginia-class from the USA might cost $4b. And the new sub program will take ages the Collins class will have to have its life extended to stop the gap. The warranty situation on a new design submarine will be interesting. If it just doesn't work do we get our money back? If it is as "noisy as a rock band" as someone once described the Collins-class, then do we get a rebate? Certainly not. Instead a manufacturer usually offers to work through the problem to get a solution. But performance indicators are of course kept secret for a good reason: who wants to tell a potential enemy how capable these machines are? So how will the public, who paid for it, know if the vessel is any good? Providing assembly jobs in Australia is a laudable aim. But at the end of the day submarine acquisition is about providing a weapons platform. Not something that has so many problems it will generate a further problem: that of morale which will affect recruiting and retention of submariners. If you want a success story which shows more capable submarines can be embarked upon and acquired then look to the Royal Navy in the 1950s. The Brits had decided they wanted to go nuclear. They turned to the US Navy to help. Vickers-Armstrong laid the keel of HMS Dreadnought in 1959 and the Royal Navy commissioned the submarine in 1963. The British have since had a long program of successful building of vessels with nuclear engines, eventually getting out of the diesel business. We should follow their lead. It's a measure of how scared Australian politicians are of the nuclear word that we've not followed the lead of our two long-time partners, the USA and Britain. Neither countries' navies operate diesel boats any more. Neither should we. Both countries have a successful submarine building program that relies on replacing their own vessels with a follow-on design. This is better than the stop-start process Australia has followed in South Australia. By all means build submarines here. But don't do it in this way. By 2030 we could have an all nuclear fleet in the water, and have a successful industry too. As it is, I fear we are proceeding down a rocky path to a watery grave. -o-o-O-o-o- Dr Tom Lewis OAM, a former naval officer and intelligence analyst with the ADF, is the author of Darwin's Submarine I-124, which chronicles the story of the 80-man submarine which still lies outside Darwin, sunk in combat with HMAS Deloraine in 1942. His latest works are Teddy Sheean VC; Eagles over Darwin how the USAAF defended north Australia for much of 1942; and Medieval Military Combat, an analysis of the reality of battlefield combat in the Wars of the Roses. Caption: USS North Carolina, the last Block I boat, at her commissioning ceremony. (USN)

16.01.2022 On 1 December, the Governor-General will present the insignia of the Victoria Cross for Australia to the family of Ordinary Seaman Edward ‘Teddy’ Sheean. The hi...storic ceremony at Government House in Canberra will be streamed live on this page. In the lead up, we will be sharing content about Teddy’s story. In this piece, Dr Victor ‘Ray’ Leonard, the last surviving member of HMAS Armidale shares his recollections of his shipmate who he was, how he approached life on board Armidale and interacted with his shipmates. For a young man of 18, his voice was not soft and sweet it was firm and strong. He didn’t speak quietly he was not lacking in confidence he was a go getter, an outgoing person. Royal Australian Navy Australian Government Department of Veterans' Affairs Australian War Memorial Defence Australia

16.01.2022 "It is my privilege to announce that Her Majesty The Queen has approved the posthumous awarding of the Victoria Cross for Australia to Ordinary Seaman Edward ‘T...eddy’ Sheean. "This morning I spoke with Teddy Sheean’s relatives and relayed the news to them. "This is a momentous day for the Sheean family. "In my conversation with them, their pride and emotion was evident. "It is also a significant moment for all Australians and, as you will hear shortly from the Chief of Navy, also the ADF and RAN. "Over the last couple of days many people have heard Teddy’s story for the first time. "A young man, serving his nation, who chose certain death over the chance of survival, to try and save his mates in the water. "Many of us have been taken aback by his courage, his commitment to his mates and his sacrifice. "The story is inspiring. It should inspire us. "As we approach the 75th anniversary of the end of the Second World War it is especially poignant. Teddy Sheean exemplifies the characteristics that our serving men and women have demonstrated in conflicts throughout history and that now define Australia: mateship, endurance, courage and sacrifice. "In remembering Teddy, acknowledging his service and honoring his courage, we also preserve the legacy of the generations that have served and shaped our nation." Royal Australian Navy Defence Australia Australian Government Department of Veterans' Affairs Australian War Memorial

15.01.2022 The latest in masks...obviously for unfriendly people....

15.01.2022 US airmen had been fighting and dying in Australia since the early days of the Pacific War. The first to fall, now forgotten, was Lieutenant Robert Buel. He di...ed in his Kittyhawk on 15 February 1942, fighting against a Japanese seaplane north of Darwin. His body and his aircraft have never been found, but he succeeded in shooting down the intruder. A lonely sign marks his end, placed on Darwin’s Esplanade near a gun from the sunken destroyer USS Peary. It is about time a something significant was named after Buel, to mark the beginning of an Alliance between Australia and the USA that endures today. This was important as the force would be virtually without air cover. As the Royal Navy had learned to great cost, ships were ill-equipped to fend off determined air attack. The sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse off the Malayan coast in December had underlined this. These had been armoured capital ships, with extensive AA armament, each more than three times the size of Houston, but both succumbed to air attack within a few hours, overwhelmed by sheer numbers of capable aerial attackers. So air cover was essential for any naval operation. This meant fighters. There were fighters available in Australia at the time, but they were seemingly all being rushed to Java. This was a time of much confusion. There was a plan for 15 P-40Es to cover the movement of the convoy from Darwin, and then cross the Timor Sea to operate from Penfui in order to cover the unloading there. However when the convoy was finally at sea, on 15 February, this had not eventuated and there were just two P-40Es at Darwin. These had been left behind due to mechanical faults when their squadron had made the flight to Java some days previously. The fighters were made airworthy and began flying patrols over Darwin. Each of their USAAF pilots, Robert Buel and Robert Oestreicher, were to play prominent roles in the days to come. Meanwhile, a squadron of P-40Es of the 33rd Pursuit Squadron was making the long cross-continent flight from Amberley near Brisbane to Perth. The plan was to load them aboard the deck of the old carrier USS Langley at Fremantle and deliver them to Java. They had reached Port Pirie in South Australia when they received orders from ABDA Command to divert urgently to Darwin. So 15 P-40Es under the experienced Major Floyd Pell were on their way north to provide much-needed cover for the convoy, although RAAF Darwin had not been notified. Meanwhile the convoy was steaming towards Timor, although trying to keep as south a route as possible during daylight. However, as Peary had experienced the day beforehand, long-range four-engined H6K Mavis flying boats of the Toko Air Wing were now active in the area. Operating from the newly captured base at Ambon, they now had the range to search the entire Timor Sea and would daringly approach the shipping channels just outside Darwin. Indeed, while the convoy was departing Darwin in the early hours, five H6Ks were taking off so to be over the search area in daylight. One aircraft was delayed by a couple of hours due to engine trouble. It was this aircraft, commanded by Sub-Lt Mirau, that spotted the convoy at 1030 and commenced shadowing it. Staying out of gun range, there was nothing the convoy could do. Three hours later, the flying boat made a bombing run on Houston, dropping a small 60kg bomb that landed some distance away. The cruiser then radioed Darwin and requested fighter support. Both Buel and Oestreicher were actively patrolling in Buel’s P-40E at Darwin RAAF base on 15 Feb 1942 before take-off their P-40Es over Darwin on the USS Houston mission, with the port engine cowl off for a spark plug change on this day, but for some reason only Buel could be contacted by radio. He was directed to make an overwater flight to find the convoy some 130 miles away. Buel managed to find the convoy, but could not sight the lurking flying boat. As an aid Houston fired in the direction of the Mavis. This worked and Buel sped over the convoy towards the enemy. What followed was a running duel of around 15 minutes as the flying boat ducked in and out of cloud cover. At one point the flying boat emerged over Houston once again and dropped further bombs, but without effect. 11 Finally Buel got close enough to get some good strikes on the enemy with his 0.50 calibre machineguns. The flying boat caught fire. However, at the same time Buel’s fighter also took hits from the 20mm cannon mounted in the tail of the Mavis. Even the sturdy P-40 could not absorb hits from such a heavy calibre weapon, and Buel was killed as his fighter plunged into the sea in flames. The flying boat too was crippled and the pilot managed to make a successful ditching. Mirau was among those killed, but a few of the crew survived and managed to take to a dinghy. None of those onboard the convoy knew these details. All they saw was a bright flash of light and then black smoke on the horizon. Buel was the first man to die in the defence of Darwin, four days before the main carrier strike on 19 February. Extract from Eagles over Darwin (Avonmore Books, 2021)

14.01.2022 A full dress practice down in Franklin this afternoon. The horses were glad to be back doing skill at arms again.... the riders too!

14.01.2022 My article out nationally in The Spectator today: 12 Virginia-class nuclears now! By Tom Lewis... Our submarine acquisition program has spent several billion dollars and not seen a metre of steel cut yet. That’s not a bad thing. Abandon the project now, and buy 12 Virginia-class nuclear vessels from the USA. With regional tensions increasing, then building our own one-off type submarines which will arrive in the early 2030’s is not good enough. We have no guarantee they will work. When we built the Collins class submarines (at exorbitant expense) they did not work properly for several years. It is only now after decades of operation that they are reasonably functional. Submarines are the ultimate deterrent and attack weapon: their location is hopefully unknown, and they can strike at targets without warning. But we need to expand beyond the capabilities of the Collins, and also the French Attack boats which we should abandon. Instead we should buy 12 of a proven design which is already in the water. We want long-range hunter-killer vessels. We also want them to be able to stay submerged for long periods to avoid detection. Nuclear does this in spades. The propulsion system also offers tremendous speed underwater much more than does diesel-electric systems. This is an attack advantage. What problems would there be in acquiring nuclear-engined submarines from the USA? Using American technology is not as difficult as might be thought. The Americans facilitated the British Navy’s entry into nuclear boats a submarine is called a boat back in the 1960s. The Royal Navy’s HMS Dreadnought was launched in 1960, five years after the US Navy’s first nuclear, USS Nautilus. Its propulsion system was American. The Virginia class is a proven vessel. They are designed by General Dynamics's Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries, and are expected to be within the US Navy until 2060. Nineteen have been completed so far. The Virginia-class would be a step up for us: they are a bigger vessel, and would require more crew. But if the relationship with the USA was deepened by purchase of such vessels, why not, with America’s permission, embark on a campaign to bring some US submariners down under? Tonnage (surfaced) Length Range (kilometres) Endurance Complement Collins 3,100 metric 77 metres 21,300 70 days 58 Attack 4,500 metric 97 metres 33,000 80 days 60 Virginia 10,200 (Imperial tons Block V) 460 feet (140 metres) Unlimited Unlimited 135 The step-up in requirements also comes with a twin reward of unlimited endurance and range at sea. The nuclear engine can provide the ability to stay submerged and at sea indefinitely, as its never-ending supply of electricity means the boat can stay down rather than surface or snorkel to obtain air for engine and crew requirements. The range too is theoretically unlimited, for again the nuclear electricity can drive the vessel for decades. But the nuclear engines also provide very high speed of movement ideal for pursuing targets or for getting into position for a firing solution ahead of them. The main obstacles in the way of acquiring Virginia-class seem to have been man-made and somewhat specious. Critics argue that we would need a nuclear industry. What this is exactly never seems to be made clear. The nuclear engines of such boats are a sealed unit. The US Navy maintains four of its own nuclear vessels in Guam, showing that the maintenance needed is no more than the usual requirements for hull, living and weapon systems which we do anyway for the Collins-class. Anything needed on the nuclear engines could be done by sailing a vessel temporarily back to the USA. The nuclear original fuel of each vessel will anyway last the life of the boat. Another objection is that Australians don’t want nuclear power, and therefore nuclear-powered naval vessels. But no extensive national poll seems to have been done on this question, and indeed in 2014, in a series of public meetings known as Guarding Against Uncertainty: Australian Attitudes to Defence nuclear submarines were continually raised positively by members of the public. It seems more that the two main sides of politics fear some slippage of their vote if they introduced it as policy. And in fact Australia has had a nuclear reactor operating in a Sydney suburb since 1958 at Lucas Heights. Another objection is that the Americans would not sell Australia such nuclear technology. I can’t see why not it is now over half a century old, and many countries apart from the USA operate small nuclear reactors in driving submarines: Britain, France, India, China, USSR, with Brazil currently developing the technology. How such systems work is hardly a secret. And it is likely the USA would want to assist its biggest Pacific partner to become more capable. The Virginia-class is indeed more powerful in areas outside its basic submarine capabilities: it fires both Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles, as well as launching torpedoes and mines. The Tomahawk is a land-attack weapon, and with its long-range is an extremely capable stand-off weapon more capable than anything else in the Australian Defence Force arsenal. Australia has crept towards such capabilities over the last few years, but 12 sets of Tomahawks the Virginia Block V boats carry 40 would massively increase Australia’s attack capacity and therefore its deterrence capability. In other words, we would become a lot more scary a good thing for if you want peace, then prepare for war. By being very strong we may indeed deter potential enemies from being engaged in battle against us. As can be seen, the Virginia-class would present a lot of advantages for Australia. Ironically, such an improvement in our defence systems would also be cheaper than what we are preparing to spend on the French submarines. $80-$100 billion has been much talked about, for vessels which would arrive in the early 2030’s onwards. The cost of the Virginias is said to be around $3-4 billion a boat a total cost of around half of the present proposition. And it would give us a weapons platform that would work rather than one which is an unknown voyage into an uncertain future. The Americans have a useful expression for such an outline as given above. It’s called a no-brainer. It means this solution is so obvious and simple and straightforward it’s obvious. But why not add something else that we may gain. With the American’s designer’s permission, build our own Virginia class boats number 9-12 under licence. Even if the USA supplied the complete engine package, that would represent another remarkable step-up for this country. As the Americans also say: don’t ask, don’t get. 1,089 words Dr Tom Lewis OAM was a naval officer, primarily an intelligence analyst, for nearly 20 years. He is a military historian whose latest books include Atomic Salvation how the A-Bombs saved the lives of 30 million, and Teddy Sheean VC, an analysis of the delayed award of a Victoria Cross to Australia’s only naval VC hero.

13.01.2022 An honour to meet with Brian Winspear, who turns 100 next month, and witness Peter Gutwein present him with a special Commemorative Medallion in recognition of ...his service during the Second World War. Brian joined the RAAF in 1939 as a navigator and wireless air gunner at the age of 19 and served in New Guinea along with 800 other Tasmanian service personnel stationed there. He also witnessed the bombing of Darwin. The 75th anniversary of Victory in the Pacific Day and the end of World War Two will be marked this Saturday, 15 August 2020. I encourage Tasmanians to say thank you to surviving veterans of this conflict.

13.01.2022 Another quality product from the dynamic duo!

11.01.2022 Modern History teacher Dr Tom Lewis has published a new book: "Eagles over Darwin". There will be a book launch and signing at the wonderful The Bookshop Darwin (Smith Street Mall) on Saturday 20th February from 10am until 1pm.

11.01.2022 Marking the official signing of the end of WWII 75 years ago... Surrender of Japan on board the battleship USS Missouri, Tokyo Bay, 2 September 1945. Survivors ...of Gull Force, evacuated from Ambon Island on HMAS Cootamundra, disembark at Morotai, September 1945. (Australian Army) Waiting for food rations in Tokyo, September 1945. The food being distributed was rations of beans, as rice was not available at this time. The bottles being carried were used to transport clean water. (Public domain) Said by some to be a Kaiten Type 2 or 4 after section with hull and propellers, with other kaiten submarines in the background, Yokosuka Naval Base September 1945. Japanese kanji character is "Yoko" probably designating the base (US Navy) Gaetano Faillace's photograph of General MacArthur and the Emperor at Allied GHQ in Tokyo. September 17, 1945. (Public domain) With a gaping bullet wound below the heart, General Tojo lies semi-conscious in a chair after he shot himself, 11 September 1945 in Tokyo. (AP Photo/Charles Gorry) Sept. 3, 1945 - Hiroshima after the blast. The memorial building still standing today is on the point at the junction of the two rivers. (AP Photo) Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding, Commander-in-Chief of Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain, chats with Douglas Bader before a flypast, September 1945. Bader personifed as did many others the aggressive spirt of fighter pilots. (RAF Museum)

10.01.2022 In Australia we commemorate Vietnam Veteran’s Day on 18 August each year, remembering those who fought in the Battle of Long Tan. The courage, tenacity and brav...ery of all Australian men and women who served and died in Vietnam helped to change the course of the Vietnam War. The Honourable John Anictomatis AO, 17th Administrator of the Northern Territory, commenced National Service in 1968, serving with the 9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment in Vietnam for nine months. Today I am reminded not only of those who fought at Long Tan, but of all men and women who have fought and continue to serve in the Australian Defence Force. I thank you for your dedicated service.

07.01.2022 The war spread far, wide and deep across northern Australia. Some interesting WWII statistics - largely drawn from accessing Japanese records - following on fro...m the 19th February 1942 air raid Over more than two years following the initial raids of 19 February 1942, the Japanese mounted 208 recorded missions over the Northern Territory and northern Australia. 135 were against the Northern Territory. 40 were against Western Australia. 33 were against Queensland. 186 Japanese airmen died. In the main their bodies have not been found or recovered. 62 enemy aircraft were brought down. Of these 21 were Zero fighters, 17 the big Betty twin-engined bombers, and the remaining number being a variety of types. Detail: Only seventy four days following the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor, Darwin was attacked by 188 carrier-borne aircraft on 19 February 1942. Fifty four land based bombers mounted a follow up raid on the RAAF Station at noon. The raids left 236 people dead, 30 aircraft destroyed, and 11 ships sunk. Following the initial raids of 19 February the Japanese mounted a bombing campaign against Darwin and Australia’s remote north extending from Queensland’s Cape York to the northwest of Western Australia. The attacks were carried out almost exclusively by aircraft of the Imperial Japanese Naval Air Force. Aircraft of varying types and roles were used to maintain the Japanese campaign over the northern coast. Seaward reconnaissance was undertaken by long range Mavis flying boats, which patrolled the waters and attacked shipping, while Emily flying boats carried out reconnaissance and attacked targets in north Queensland, and Townsville in particular. The main raids were carried out by the twin-engined Betty bomber, usually escorted by the famous Zero fighter. Sometimes these raids consisted of scores of aircraft. As in any war reconnaissance played a vital role in strategic planning, with early duties carried out by Babs aircraft until the arrival of the sleek Dinah reconnaissance aircraft. The last intruder over northern Australia, a Dinah reconnaissance aircraft, was shot down over Truscott air base in the remote Kimberleys of Western Australia on 20 July 1944. -o-o-O-o-o- Taken from The Empire Strikes South Japan’s Air War Against Northern Australia 1942-45 and Darwin Bombed a Young Person’s Guide to the 19 February 42 raid both books by military historian Dr Tom Lewis OAM (Avonmore Books, South Australia) Captions: Zero pilot Harada, who flew in the 19 Feb raid, with the author in 2015. (Photograph by Simon Loveday) Japanese carrier model in the Yasukuni Shrine Museum, Tokyo. (Author photo) Kate bombers overfly a Japanese cruiser or battleship. The photo was probably taken in peacetime - note the awanings for shade spread over the warship, which would not have been allowed in combat conditions. (US Navy) Zero model 52 fighter in the Yasukuni Shrine Museum, Tokyo. (Author photo)

07.01.2022 The Governor-General has written to Her Majesty The Queen with the Australian Government’s recommendation for the posthumous award of the Victoria Cross for Aus...tralia to Ordinary Seaman Edward ‘Teddy’ Sheean. The story of Teddy Sheean’s actions are inspirational. As we approach the 75th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, they are a vivid reminder of the heroic sacrifice that so many young Australians made in the service of our nation. That service and sacrifice will be forever remembered and honoured. The Victoria Cross for Australia is the only award within Australia’s Honours and Awards system that requires Her Majesty’s approval. If Her Majesty approves the posthumous award, the Governor-General will, in due course, facilitate an investiture ceremony that befits this historic recommendation. Images courtesy of Australian War Memorial Royal Australian Navy Defence Australia

06.01.2022 One of the last survivors of the first Darwin air raid is 100 this Saturday Brian Winspear, originally from Tasmania, was an air gunner and wireless operator in... Hudson bombers in World War II. On the day of the raid his aircraft had been ordered out of the islands to Australia’s north as the Japanese Army and Navy inexorably advanced south. Crammed with more than 20 evacuees, the Hudson, normally only flying with a crew of five, made it back to Darwin in the early hours of that fateful Thursday. Only a few hours later, the town was under heavy attack. At the RAAF aerodrome Brian took shelter in a slit trench 150m from the hangers which were one of the main targets for the 188 Japanese fighters and bombers. He survived the second raid of 54 bombers which came in around midday. Over the war he flew several hundred missions, eventually being commissioned as an officer; training as a navigator, and serving in Vultee Vengeance divebombers in New Guinea. Brian was demobilized in late 1945. He went on to business opportunities following the war, which included opening Innkeepers, a chain of hotels, eventually becoming 20 motels in five states. He married Shirley, later a successful painter, and was awarded an Order of Australia for his services to the tourism industry and the community. He has visited Darwin many times for the Bombing of Darwin Commemoration, often wearing his old uniform, and recently unveiled a plaque to his old squadrons as part of a joint Order of Australia and Darwin City Council commemoration. Brian still lives in Hobart, Tasmania, and although this Saturday will be a quieter celebration than he would have liked due to Covid-19, he and Shirley will still see some guests and raise a glass to a successful life. Here’s to a great Australian who served his country in war and peace for a century. -o-o-O-o-o- Written by Military Historian Dr Tom Lewis OAM, a long-time friend of Brian. Tom is the author of Carrier Attack, the story of the first raid, and of The Empire Strikes South, a chronicle of all of the Japanese air raids on northern Australia. Captions: Brian Winspear checks out a bomber gun turret he flew as a gunner in Hudson bombers from the NT. (Great Southern Rail) Journeying to Darwin on the Anzac Ghan in 2012, WWII RAAF veteran Brian Winspear salutes the memory of fallen comrades at Adelaide River War Cemetery (GSR) A16-236, a Hudson from No. 2 Squadron (RAAF) 1 Squadron RAAF Hudsons in close formation in WWII.(RAAF)

06.01.2022 In commemoration of the 75th VP Day, Dr Lewis and his Year 9/10 class, along with Mr Jared Archibald from the Museum and Art Gallery of the NT and Mr Craig Wha...rton from the Arms Collectors' Association of the NT, have set up a fascinating display of historical memorabilia in the café for yesterday and today. Deputy Prime Minister Mr Michael McCormack, a military history aficionado, dropped by yesterday for an informal visit to check it out while he was in town. See more

05.01.2022 On this day, 2 May 1982, 39 years ago the submarine HMS Conqueror sank the cruiser General Belgrano in the Falklands War. Pictures: Belgrano sinking after the ...torpedo strike. (Royal Navy) The submarine returns to base. Note the Jolly Roger flag - an important but to some controversial morale booster (RN archival)

05.01.2022 Presenting the Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack MP with a copy of the Teddy Sheean biography...

04.01.2022 John Moyle, a great Territorian; Australian, and soldier of his country, has passed away aged 102 in Sydney. Sergeant John Moyle hailed from Western Australia, ...where he joined the Army in 1938 before the outbreak of World War II. John was initially trained for coastal artillery batteries, but after some brief service relating to the big guns, he was unusually posted to Army duties on the high seas, serving in the Special Investigations Branch (Maritime). The SIB guarded prisoners of war, investigated shipboard crime, and participated in any necessary defence when under attack. By the end of WWII the SIB had seven Officers and 122 Other Ranks, of which John was one, having risen to sergeant by then. John Moyle served until November 1945, by which time he had seen service across many areas of the Pacific. Post-war he worked in Papua New Guinea, and then moved to the Territory in the 1970s, where he was engaged in the building trade as a manager. Even after retirement, John continued to work as a volunteer supporting charities, and as a guide at Darwin Military Museum. He attended Anzac Day every year, wearing uniform and medals, although in later years he rode in a place of honour in one of the WWII jeeps. In 2017 John was filmed talking about his experiences for The Territory Remembers project, the NT Government’s commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the Territory’s participation in World War II. Captions: WWII veteran John Moyle with some Japanese flags and weapons at Darwin Military Museum (Photo by Gary Haslett) Darwin WWII veteran John Moyle and war artist Bob McRae, at the Darwin Military Musem display of HMAS Deloraine's fight with the Japanese submarine I-124. Bob completed two paintings for the display. (Photo Tom Lewis)

03.01.2022 Just finished ATOMIC SALVATION- an absolute powerhouse of a book,definitely puts the atomic bombs in perspective! Thank you so much Tom Lewis

01.01.2022 My new book about the murder of Jack Riley on HMAS Australia in March 1942 is in book stores, including the Australian War Memorial, in October. The murder was ...one of the most controversial events in the history of the RAN and led to the adoption of the Statute of Westminster, making Australia legally independent from Great Britain! See more