The Vietnam Era

Hippy Chippy · **Posted:** Mon Mar 23, 2015 9:05 am

....................... This inspiration gem of wisdom was sent in by GDY Wayne... :obey:

Mick Hamilton · **Posted:** Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:13 am

Last week I went to a seminar in Canberra on "Was the RAN ready for Vietnam - 50 years on Lessons learning"

It was very well attended and full of current and recent brass with at least 4 Admirals that I recognised, several Commodores and a plethora of Captains. Myself and a few of my mates were the OD's.

It was a very honest and informative series of talks (papers to be promulgated circa October).

Briefly, the conclusions on were we prepared or ready were:

RAN senior leadership - Definitely not

Operationally - No

Materially - No

Training - Pretty good due to Nirimba and Leeuwin output. (Many an Admiral openly lamented on the closure of Nirimba and stated that it was one of the most serious mistakes the RAN has made in several decades. To a lesser extent Leeuwin as the crossover point in recruitment and retention had been reached.

Were the DDG's purchased for use in Vietnam? - NO! it was a coincidence and a purely political decision unilaterally made by John Gorton as the CNS at the time Burrill wanted to purchase the County Class destroyer from Britain and fit them (and the Darings) out with Tartar. The cost, degree or difficulty and risk was too high for Gorton and the Government of the day was cuddling up to the US.

Notice that AUS was being involved in Vietnam? - approx one month, a total shock to all. Sydney was about to pay off and had a ships company of less than a dozen. It had to undergo a quick and dirty "refit" to turn it into a troop transport and get it capable of going to sea.

Prior to 1965, the RAN was in a parlous state. It had lost the confidence of the Government and the public especially after the Voyager sinking and how the Naval Board dealt with it. Enlistment and retention rates were low and without Nirimba and Leeuwin, feeding the system the outfit was struggling to get and keep three ships at sea at any one time.

I'll get the papers posted on this site upon receipt.

It was well worth the trip.

Seejay · **Posted:** Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:59 am

A very interesting post, Mick. Quite enlightening too. :ok:

Amazing that so many star ranks lament, but none correct the mistake. :-k

piquet · **Posted:** Fri Apr 03, 2015 10:09 am

That would be a goreat set of papers to read.
Hopefully the modern members of defence both Civilian, Government and Service were there and had their ears open and their mouths shut and will take heed of what happened and not allow the political interferene that is going on now to ruin the RAN anymore than it has already.
I get pissed when I hear the Navy bagged for the problems with the Collins for example. Don't blame the kids for the fact that the train set dosn't work. If I remember correctly and tell me I'm wrong if I am, but the Collins wasn't the preferred submarine from the RAN point of view but the Defence Department pushed a different barrow and Kim Beazley was the prime pusher at the time.
Much the same with the FFG and also the Aluminium Patrol boats.

Mick Hamilton · **Posted:** Fri Apr 03, 2015 10:10 am

The 3 and four stars that I observed lamenting Nirimba's demise were: Barry, Shackleton, Shalders and Adams. The current leadership is both too young and don't have the corporate knowledge of the benefits of real tradesmen in the fleet. they'd rather take the soft but over time far more expensive and strategically flawed option and go with the flow of contracting out organisational and intermediate maintenance. Somehow, I think the aforementioned did not have the political will or support to revert back to what was a proven philosophy. As we know, to buck the system is political death in the RAN.

piquet · **Posted:** Fri Apr 03, 2015 10:24 am

Remember Mick you were out ranked but never outclassed. You are a MOBI proud tall and true. These tosssers probably had a cushy ride right from the start.
The only real Captain of that type of persuasion that I had any real time for was a guy named Nick Hellyer. He was the Training Captain at Cerberus when I was running the slipway. We had a problem and he was the only one that believed in what we were trying to do with the Tow Boat that we had there. George Bewert (RIP) was the Shipwright officer at the time, another white man. We had a problem with incomplete info for slipping the towboat and after it was checked three times, we went to Nick to get authority for the slipping. His words were "Do you think it will be OK",
Yes from both George and I. "Well do it, I will be there to watch".

He was and everything turned out Ok. But at least I knew that I had an understanding ex Tiffie backing us up if it looked like going pear shaped.

Although my sceptical side now thinks he could equally have been there for support as well as being there to see what happened ready for the court martial if necessary!!

There are some other people that turned SD and went to Captain rank whose names I would not even mention on this forum. In my opinion they were back stabbers! More interested in their own embelishments than anything else.
And one of them started as a stoker went to mechanicain from there to SD MEO to Captain but a real wanker and not well liked by just about all who served under him.

BC · **Posted:** Fri Apr 03, 2015 10:40 am

Nick Helyer, I served twice with him and he was a good MEO and a great bloke as well.

But, he was the Training Commander at Nirimba before going to Cerberus and I think he had inputs as to the demise of Nirimba. I know the decisions were done at a much higher level, but I fear they needed his input!

I would like to think that I am incorrect. I would like to think that it was all political with the hierarchy pushing for the history of Cerberus as victors over Nirimba! :-k

piquet · **Posted:** Fri Apr 03, 2015 10:56 am

I would also like to think that the decisions were made by Holthouse and that Nick had to implement the decisions. It was a decision that seems to have had a lot of repercussions even 40 years later and that no one really wants to admit that it was wrong.

Peter Weyling · **Posted:** Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:25 am

Pk if you go back to Mick H's first post on this subject, he says that "Many Admirals stated that it was one of the most serious mistakes the RAN ever made" (or something similar), so you can't say that no one wants to admit that is was wrong. Many already have!! As for Helyer ....you guys saw him from a different perspective to mine.

piquet · **Posted:** Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:54 am

Selective reading on my part. I did reread that and glad that it was admitted, just a bit too late me thinks.

Maybe I was wanting to read more into my bias and perceptions than I really wanted to admit.

The Vietnam Era

Who is online