Jump to content

Australia finds wreck of Japanese WW2 disaster ship


Recommended Posts

Posted

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.

  • Thanks 2
Posted (edited)

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. 

Edited by spidermike007
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
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. 

  • Confused 1
Posted
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.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
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.

  • Like 2
Posted
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.

Posted
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.

Posted
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.

  • Like 1
Posted
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...

Posted
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

  • Like 2
Posted
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.

Posted
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.

  • Like 2
Posted
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?

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
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.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
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.

Posted (edited)
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.

 

Edited by TallGuyJohninBKK
Posted
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.

Posted (edited)
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.

 

 

Edited by TallGuyJohninBKK
Posted
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.

Posted
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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...