Rum ration in the RAN was discontinued in 1921, so there's noone alive who had the pleasure.
oldsig
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
oldsig
Jeez that's pretty rough. Temperance people get their way? I know in the 1918 or 1919 NZ referendum on prohibition, the GOTD held the vote back until the returning soldiers had finally arrived home. That upset the Temperance Union no end because they knew that they'd lose the referendum that way. The PM said that the returning soldiers had every right to vote in something that would directly affect them.
Not in the RAN (at least in living memory). RAN personnel embedded in other navies were generally allowed to part take officially or not (which makes it murky on co-crewed RN/RAN ships back in the early days). RAN has been a beer navy. Logistically this made sense, as its the common drink across all services. No specialized navy caliber required. No special treatment.
Truth be told, RAN sailors are multi-fuel capable like a gas turbine. They will generally drink any thing and everything. Rum is on RAN ships, just not as an official forced tot.
Again, beer takes up more space than rum. An obvious area for re-engineering for Australian requirements. Beer does allow better hot/high humidity operations.
Rum has a bit of history of causing trouble in Australia.. Particularly if those in the Army get a hold of it. Causing tendencies to cause mutiny and arresting the (naval) governor.
Truth be told, RAN sailors are multi-fuel capable like a gas turbine. They will generally drink any thing and everything. Rum is on RAN ships, just not as an official forced tot.
Again, beer takes up more space than rum. An obvious area for re-engineering for Australian requirements. Beer does allow better hot/high humidity operations.
Rum has a bit of history of causing trouble in Australia.. Particularly if those in the Army get a hold of it. Causing tendencies to cause mutiny and arresting the (naval) governor.
Never forget one day in the Stores Basin in Singapore, we, Taranaki I think, and a USN Knox class. The Kiwi piped “Up spirits”, we piped “There will be beer issue tonight. Cards to the Coxn’s Office”. There was a long pause, and then from the Yank’s 1MC came “There will be a gratuitous issue of candy and soda on the fantail in ten minutes time”......
Spot on, can't remember what the reasoning was at the time, remember reading about it years ago while I was still in. I can however attest to the fact that all Senior Sailor messes on RAN warships are well stocked with rum.
NSW Rum Corps I think were sourced from Royal Marines, not army. Could be wrong, been a looong time since high school history classes.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Neither actually they were the NSW Corps and they little to no Military background. And for our non Australian posters
The Governor they Mutinied against, one
William Bligh of the Bounty fame.
Last edited:
You’re correct.
The Marines accompanied the First Fleet to establish the penal colony in 1787/88 but were relieved by the NSW Corps in 1790.
New South Wales Corps | Australia, Mutiny, Rum Rebellion | Britannica
New South Wales Corps, (1789–1818), British military force formed for service in the convict colony of New South Wales. It figured prominently in the early history of Australia. With the arrival of the corps in 1790–92, the colony gained a new dynamic force: officers and soldiers received land
www.britannica.com
I don't think it's coincidental that 1921 is also the year of the formation of the RAAF. It was probably because the RAAFies demanded tonic with their gin ration, the Army thought both of you were precious wankers who needed to get a beer up you, and in traditional fashion the (then separate) Departments of Navy, Army and Airforce fought a war that was only stopped by the politicians taking all the grog for themselves.Spot on, can't remember what the reasoning was at the time, remember reading about it years ago while I was still in. I can however attest to the fact that all Senior Sailor messes on RAN warships are well stocked with rum.
I have to say that during my career, my wife's RNZN cousin (a senior rate with the oddity of low booze consumption) was kind enough to save his tots and supply me with the occasional 40oz bottle of blood. Good man that. Admired our cross Tasman cousins ever since. Except during Bledisloe
oldsig
It's a rare species of senior rate who has a low consumption of alcohol. Was he not well at the time? Might've been a soup jockey or sick bay tiffie. Mind you when I was in, on runs ashore we only visited churches, art galleries and museums. Nowadays the RNZN is a dry ship. No tot and no booze at sea.
Checked with my old man today, RAN sailors definitely got tots when in on RN and NZ ships or bases. He pointed out that it was an invitation to rum tots on NZ ship visiting that got him arrested back in the 70's.
He also reminded me, apparent the RAN doesn't do beer issues anymore.. Checking https://www.defence.gov.au/PayAndConditions/ADF/Resources/MILPERSMAN.pdf it seems to indicate senior sailors and officers may not drink while a ship is underway. Much less fun. Speaking to a submariner recently on a tour, he pointed out that the sub force is effectively dry.
As for the NSW Corps, was formed as part of the British army, relieving the New South Wales Marine Corps, which was disbanded. They had support from the British Army. John Macarthur had served in the British army (sort of, no real action). Macarthur who lead the rum rebellion also shot his commanding officer Paterson (british army), in a dual. Plenty of dark history there neither Patterson or Macarthur were nice people.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Some of the tension between the Corps and the Governors might have been Navy/Army power struggles certainly each leader of the factions was supported by a branch (Governors were generally Navy and Macarthur was Army). Funny enough after the Rum rebellion they sent Lachlan Macquarie out, who was Army and arrived with his own Army troops.
He also reminded me, apparent the RAN doesn't do beer issues anymore.. Checking https://www.defence.gov.au/PayAndConditions/ADF/Resources/MILPERSMAN.pdf it seems to indicate senior sailors and officers may not drink while a ship is underway. Much less fun. Speaking to a submariner recently on a tour, he pointed out that the sub force is effectively dry.
As for the NSW Corps, was formed as part of the British army, relieving the New South Wales Marine Corps, which was disbanded. They had support from the British Army. John Macarthur had served in the British army (sort of, no real action). Macarthur who lead the rum rebellion also shot his commanding officer Paterson (british army), in a dual. Plenty of dark history there neither Patterson or Macarthur were nice people.
New South Wales Marine Corps - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
New South Wales Corps - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Some of the tension between the Corps and the Governors might have been Navy/Army power struggles certainly each leader of the factions was supported by a branch (Governors were generally Navy and Macarthur was Army). Funny enough after the Rum rebellion they sent Lachlan Macquarie out, who was Army and arrived with his own Army troops.
He's now what's left of a man who spent his life chipping the inside of boilers and greasing everything else in the heat and dark of various engine rooms. You'd think he'd need as much liquid as possible, but who can tell with Kiwis?
oldsig
Stoker that explains it then. But a stoker who doesn't drink much, that is indeed a rarity. I do hope that he is in good health these days and keeping well.
How to do we potentially end up with a ship the size of a Burke F3 with only 1/3rd of the VLS? If we end up using those cells my guess is It will be against China (No one else comes to mind) somewhere just south or north of Indo and it’s a long way back to Freo to reload.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure that the actual VLS count has been finalised as yet? IIRC the 32 figure came from a model of the Hunter class some time ago. I am just a layman so take this with the appropriately sized pinch of salt but I get the impression the RAN may not be in a rush to stuff the Hunter class full of VLS cells just yet. If the first batch of ships are fitted with 32 that might buy time (and leave growth margin available?) to weigh the benefits of other (still emerging) technologies. Railguns might be a bridge too far but things like lasers, unmanned systems and even non-Mk41 VLS cells (for future hypersonics perhaps?) spring to mind as future possibilities during the service life of these ships.
There is also the small matter of budgetary limitations. The weapons used to fill Mk41 cells aren't exactly cheap, so there is also the practical consideration of how many missiles the RAN can realistically afford to fit them with. An increasingly pressing concern in the current climate.
Frigates were the cruisers of old that became iron clads then cruisers, battle cruisers and battleships. Post WWII the USN referred to Destroyer Leaders as Frigates, these were larger than destroyers and were reclassified as cruisers in the 1970s.
Correct me if I am wrong, but increasing length (and or beam) for a given displacement, generally reduces draft, and reducing draft reduces friction? Adding length also reduces the power required to achieve and maintain a given speed and the fuel required to sustain a given cruising speed?
A very rough layman's take on it I know, but generally speaking, more steel and more air (volume) can improve the efficiency of the hull, i.e. higher speed and lower fuel burn for a higher displacement, if the extra steel is used to improve the hull form rather than cramming the most gear into the smallest volume possible, increasing draft and possibly requiring ballast to offset top weight. This is the issue with the ANZAC upgrades, they sit much lower in the water now than when built.
Am I close Alex?
Plenty of cells, remember the Type 26 has a multi mission deck that provides significantly more volume (and flexibility) than the hangar and boat arrangements on most designs. Then there's the sensors and arrangements of such that should deliver worlds best situational awareness, i.e. see the other guy before he sees you.
Yes, an increase in draft without 'much' additional weight will result in a reduction in draft (hence the comment that this was draft dependent). However if you lose weight down low then the reduction in the draft increases the CoG with a consequent impact on stability. A 10m plug is quite a bit and I don't think they would go that far .... I could be wrong. However, there is nothing definative from any source about any margin of growth.
You are basically correct on the length to beam ratio and speed noting the hull form will have a lot to do with it. It can also improves directional stability. By way of an example a class very 'beamy' 110m container vessel operating to PNG was plugged with and extra 30m and a third crane. With no change in the power plant the vessel speed increased marginally and the fuel consumption dropped marginally as the vessel was more directionally stable and the rudder (under autopilot) moved less to maintain direction (rudder movements are a great way to wash off speed irresepctive of what the engine is doing).
The additional space, if it being considered, may be to increase the hulls growth margins for future blocks allowing for changes in sensors and increases weapon load outs. Certainly such an increase in growth margin may provide a platform for the T45 replacement (again this is just speculation).
My issue is there nothing out there from an informed source inside the project. I find the 'sinking feeling' headline to be unncessarily negative as it suggests a complete redesign.
Wait and see I guess.
The example I recall is the RN Type 42 Batch 3, had a substantial increase in length over the Batch 1 and 2 ships, that supposedly resulted in an increase in speed and reduced fuel burn without changing the propulsion plant. I believe the Batch 2 and 3 Type 22s had similar, but less impressive improvements in performance over the Batch 1 ships, the later Batch 3 Type 22s with the improved Spey / Tyne COGAG propulsion were meant to have been particularly impressive.
This may however be due to original, more balanced designs being reduced to a minimum, far from ideal, length to cut costs. Returning to something approaching the original length on the Type 42 Batch 3 just returned the hull to the originally intended length to beam ratio.
An increase in length, beam, or both, means you can have more mass in the hull structure, without increasing draft or resorting to the use of ballast, counteracting some weight increases topside. Increased hull volume also means greater freedom to arrange some heavy systems lower down in the ships structure, potentially improved rafting arrangement for equipment could also be worked in, as well as improved access for maintenance.
Last edited:
- Status