Australia finds wreck of Japanese WW2 disaster ship

[Social Media]

Deep-sea explorers have found the wreck of a Japanese transport ship which sank off the Philippines, killing nearly 1,000 Australian troops and civilians in World War Two.

It was Australia's worst maritime disaster: a US submarine torpedoed the ship unaware that it was packed with prisoners captured in Papua New Guinea.

The Montevideo Maru sank in July 1942.

An estimated 979 Australians died, along with 33 Norwegian sailors and 20 Japanese guards and crew.

An Australian maritime archaeology group, Silentworld Foundation, organised the mission, helped by a Dutch deep-sea survey company called Fugro.

[Tug]

My condolences to all affected countries and families what a hellish time in history 

[spidermike007]

Every day a Japanese war ship was sunk in WWII was a brilliant day for mankind. 

 

Unfortunately, this ship was full of brave Aussie soldiers. What a disaster. 

[JonnyF]

On 4/23/2023 at 7:59 AM, Social Media said:

a US submarine torpedoed the ship unaware that it was packed with prisoners captured in Papua New Guinea.

Very sad. Once wonders if the US armed forces using the tactics of Shoot, Ready, Aim.  

 

A terrible period in history, which highlights just how inane the trend of using "Nazi" as a casual insult is. 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Very sad. Once wonders if the US armed forces using the tactics of Shoot, Ready, Aim.  

 

A terrible period in history, which highlights just how inane the trend of using "Nazi" as a casual insult is. 

It was a Japanese ship, refer topic at top of thread.

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Very sad. Once wonders if the US armed forces using the tactics of Shoot, Ready, Aim.  

 

A terrible period in history, which highlights just how inane the trend of using "Nazi" as a casual insult is. 

If you read the OP the US submarine tracked the known Japanese ship for a whole day before shooting.

[JonnyF]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It was a Japanese ship, refer topic at top of thread.

Yes, during WW2. 

 

Refer topic at top of thread.

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

If you read the OP the US submarine tracked the known Japanese ship for a whole day before shooting.

Well that's marvellous.

 

It's a shame they didn't know who was on board.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Well that's marvellous.

 

It's a shame they didn't know who was on board.

You just noted that it was 80 years ago. Submerged submarines didn't have a means of contacting their bases in those days. In fact any radio signal would give away their position.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Well that's marvellous.

 

It's a shame they didn't know who was on board.

Fog of war.

 

 

 

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You just noted that it was 80 years ago. Submerged submarines didn't have a means of contacting their bases in those days. In fact any radio signal would give away their position.

Ah well. Just blow it up then...

[ozimoron]

Just now, JonnyF said:

Ah well. Just blow it up then...

Sadly they did. The ship could easily have been carrying rubber back to Japan.

 

Japanese war planners had long looked south, especially to Brunei for oil and Malaya for rubber and tin. In the autumn of 1940, Japan requested 3.15 million barrels of oil from the Dutch East Indies but received a counteroffer of only 1.35 million.[19] The complete U.S. oil embargo reduced the Japanese options to two: seize Southeast Asia before its existing stocks of strategic materials were depleted or submission to American demands.[20] Moreover, any southern operation would be vulnerable to attack from the Philippines, a U.S. colony, and so war against the U.S. seemed necessary in any case.

 

wiki

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Sadly they did. The ship could easily have been carrying rubber back to Japan.

Coulda woulda shoulda.

 

Back in reality, it was carrying Australian POW's.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Coulda woulda shoulda.

 

Back in reality, it was carrying Australian POW's.

We already know but thanks. RIP to those POW's.

 

Obviously the US navy did not know.

[roquefort]

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

We already know but thanks. RIP to those POW's.

 

Obviously the US navy did not know.

There were many instances of POW transports, known as hellships, being sunk by allied forces. The ships were not marked as carrying prisoners, no red crosses or other identification so were considered legitimate targets.

 

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/allies-killed-20000-countrymen-sank-japanese-hell-ships-transported-m.html?chrome=1

[Tug]

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Very sad. Once wonders if the US armed forces using the tactics of Shoot, Ready, Aim.  

 

A terrible period in history, which highlights just how inane the trend of using "Nazi" as a casual insult is. 

Ahaaa nope no body wonders about the us armed forces sinking Japanese ships during ww2 no sir no one (wonders) although some certainly wonder why on earth someone would make such a statement or the nazi casual insult comment it certainly has me wondering……… all of that beeing said the tragic deaths of ALL is tragic including the Japanese in the sense that they were doing as directed by their government as any citizen of any country are expected to do .to me it is the leaders that promote the wars that are the criminals and some of the participants that use inhumane and cruel techniques 

[ozimoron]

11 minutes ago, Tug said:

Ahaaa nope no body wonders about the us armed forces sinking Japanese ships during ww2 no sir no one (wonders) although some certainly wonder why on earth someone would make such a statement or the nazi casual insult comment it certainly has me wondering……… all of that beeing said the tragic deaths of ALL is tragic including the Japanese in the sense that they were doing as directed by their government as any citizen of any country are expected to do .to me it is the leaders that promote the wars that are the criminals and some of the participants that use inhumane and cruel techniques 

All war dead should be honoured equally. The Japanese sailors aboard the mini sub attack on Sydney were given a burial with full military honors. The Japanese submarine i-124 sank off Darwin with a loss of 79 sailors is now a protected war memorial with a plaque in a prominent place in Darwin nearby a similar plaque honouring the USS Peary sunk in Darwin harbour almost a month later.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

On 4/23/2023 at 8:14 AM, Tug said:

My condolences to all affected countries and families what a hellish time in history 

 

WOW, that's a World War II horror story that I've never heard before.... Perhaps it's not a prominently featured episode in the U.S. history books used in my schools.

 

How could the submarine crew have known it was mainly Allied prisoners instead of Japanese soldiers/sailors aboard their target?

[roquefort]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

How could the submarine crew have known it was mainly Allied prisoners instead of Japanese soldiers/sailors aboard their target?

They couldn't know, although the article suggests the allied governments knew the risk and were prepared to sacrifice those men to the war effort.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

4 minutes ago, roquefort said:

although the article suggests the allied governments knew the risk and were prepared to sacrifice those men to the war effort.

I've read the full article. I don't see anything in it that even remotely suggests the claim you're making above.

 

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

I've read the full article. I don't see anything in it that even remotely suggests the claim you're making above.

 

the Allied commanders knew of the prisoners’ presence on the ships. Despite their knowledge, the hell ships were attacked by Allied aircraft and submarines, as it was deemed more important to sink the ships than to save the prisoners.

[still kicking]

Lest we forget

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

the Allied commanders knew of the prisoners’ presence on the ships. Despite their knowledge, the hell ships were attacked by Allied aircraft and submarines, as it was deemed more important to sink the ships than to save the prisoners.

You have some source for that claim, as pertains to the specific submarine involved here, and the specific ship being discussed in the OP here that it sank?

 

And beyond that, why from a military perspective would it be important to sink mere transport ships.... as opposed to actual warships, especially if there was knowledge that the transport in question here was filled with Allied prisoners of war.

 

That proposition sounds very dubious.

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

You have some source for that claim, as pertains to the specific submarine involved here, and the specific ship being discussed in the OP here that it sank?

 

And beyond that, why from a military perspective would it be important to sink mere transport ships.... as opposed to actual warships, especially if there was knowledge that the transport in question here was filled with Allied prisoners of war.

 

That proposition sounds very dubious.

 

The same link roquefort posted.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

28 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The same link roquefort posted.

That article specifically says the commanders of the Allied ships/submarines that did the sinkings of the Japanese transports didn't know, and had no way of knowing, that Allied prisoners were onboard, calling the prisoners' loss of life "accidental" and "unintentional."

 

There's a vague claim that higher-up "Allied commanders" supposedly knew more, but as far as I could see, there's no source or verification of just what that knowledge was and how, if at all, it pertained to the specific sinkings discussed in the article.

 

From the OP article here, the Japanese specifically chose to NOT mark those ships in any way to indicate that prisoners were aboard....  Had they been marked as prisoner transports, I very much doubt they would have been sunk.

 

 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

That article specifically says the commanders of the Allied ships/submarines that did the sinkings of the Japanese transports didn't know, and had no way of knowing, that Allied prisoners were onboard, calling the prisoners' loss of life "accidental" and "unintentional."

 

There's a vague claim that "Allied commanders" supposedly knew more, but as far as I could see, there's no source or verification of just what that knowledge was and how, if at all, it pertained to the specific sinkings discussed in the article.

 

I quoted directly from the article.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I quoted directly from the article.

Yep, one part of it...but not the other references to the contrary.

 

[Emster23]

20 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Very sad. Once wonders if the US armed forces using the tactics of Shoot, Ready, Aim.  

 

A terrible period in history, which highlights just how inane the trend of using "Nazi" as a casual insult is. 

Make no sense. Do you expect the sub to surface and ask the ship what they are transporting? Really? I don't wonder at all, and neither would any serious student of history

What is this about casual insult of "Nazi"? You do realise the Japanese weren't Nazis, I hope. Insane racists (see "Rape of Nanking" for particulars), but takes a bit more to make a true Nazi