Talk:MV Duntroon

Berthing
"On 23 October 1950, she was damaged by fire while berthed alongside the Yarra River".

This sentence appears in the 'Return to civilian service' section.

As a fully paid-up member of the Landlubber's Society, I was wondering how a ship can be berthed alongside a river.

Or should the sentence read "...while berthed in the Yarra River"? Having clicked the Yarra River link and looked through the article, I would say that is the likely answer. RASAM (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks Newm30 (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Really a RAN ship?
After trawling through the internet and my books, I can't find any reference to Duntroon being commissioned into the RAN at any point during her career. She's not mentioned in Gillett's Australian and New Zealand Warships since 1946, or Nally's Australian Warships and Auxiliaries of the 1940s, and the only appearance in Stevens' The Royal Australian Navy: A History is in relation to her sinking of Goolangai. The only time the RAN website mentions the ship outside the Goolangai collision is a reference to "the repatriation transport Duntroon". Saerches of the AWM site do not provide any dedicated pages, but the BCOF photos relating to the ship seem to flip between MV and HMV, although a collection search for "HMAS Duntroon" turns up three items, dated 1942 (1) and 1945 (2), all outside the article's specified commission period.

Any thoughts on what should be done? Any other ideas on where we can check? -- saberwyn 01:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Quite a few references in Gill's history. Quick search on the many chapters I have downloaded (largely Pacific oriented) shows no commissioned ship. Most mentions are in v.2, chapter 28 dealing with 1945 transport of troops to garrison retaken Singapore with "On the day that Mountbatten took the surrender of Itagaki at Singapore, H.M.A.S. Hawkesbury (Lieut-Commander Purvis) entered the port, escorting the interstate liner Duntroon" that is pretty clear for the end. Gill does show "H .M.A .T . Duntroon" in a photo caption, but no indication at all of a commissioned ship. Appendix I, covering the volumes, titled "THE DEFENSIVELY EQUIPPED MERCHANT SHIPS" has this:


 * "Thus Duntroon, armed with one 4-inch Mk. XIX, one 12-pounder, two Bofors, six Oerlikons, two 2-inch U.P. (Pillar Boxes) and F.A.M's, carried one lieutenant R .A.N.V.R. as D.E.M.S. gunnery officer, two petty officer gunlayers, 16 other ratings and eight M.R.A. as Bofors crew. She and Reynella (formerly the Italian ship Remo) were the most heavily armed Australian ships."


 * With no mention of the ship in the index or above as commissioned RN it is pretty safe to conclude it was not. The blunder is very common. For example SS Robin Doncaster is one I've tagged as a result. The USN is pretty serious about commissioning and when there is no official mention of a fairly large ship, even if an auxiliary type, being commissioned it is almost certainly not and "USS" an assumption made by some of the many (even non-career sailors) that any ship on a military mission must be USS. Many soldiers aboard ships always U.S. Army Transports wrote home about the "Navy ship" that took them overseas. Recommendation: strip HMAS out of the article. I may get around to doing that for USS in Robin Doncaster some day. Palmeira (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Everyone knows that if it floats, its a navy boat. I've moved the article to MV Duntroon and removed the uncited claims that she was commissioned as HMAT or HMAS. I've left the category because it encompasses both commissioned, non commisioned, and chartered vessels. If evidence can by found that the ship was commissioned, instead of just requisitioned or chartered, it can be added to the article text, and we can decided where the title can go then. -- saberwyn 06:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If it helps the entry for Duntroon in Straczek (1996) Royal Australian Navy: A-Z Ships, Aircraft and Shore Establishments states: "Requisitioned 12 Oct 39 for conversion to an AMC. Returned to owners 3 Nov 39. Vessel did not serve in the RAN." Anotherclown (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm adding those dates to the article. Any chance you could add the page number to the cite? -- saberwyn 03:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Howdy - its on page 60 (although Straczek doesn't use page numbers so you have to count them). Hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)