Cutlass — the sailor’s weapon

Referring to the article “Cutlass — the Sailor’s Weapon” of May 29:

Cutlasses seem to have been issued to at least some RN ships in WW2, eg, the boarding party from HMS Jervis which took possession of the Italian heavy cruiser Pola on the night of the Battle of Matapan was armed with cutlasses.

Peter Beeston,
Email address supplied.

Let’s get physical says former sailor

Regards fitness and Naval personnel (Letters, November 7):

Physical fitness in the RAN has always been a major let down in the performance of Australia’s sailors.

The confinement of life aboard ship does not encourage physical training in the ship’s company unless already motivated.

I ended my service at ADFA in a tri-service environment and I can only say that exposure to Army and Air Force policy put me in the peak physical condition of my career.

Introduce a base fitness test, ensure all personnel are tested and offer postings in accordance with results.

Only this way can we be assured of personnel who can carry out their duties effectively.

A.L. Parker
ex-ABSN R138222.
Email address supplied.

Conditions of Service for OP Plumbob questioned

The ADF is currently involved in Op Trek, which involves peacekeeping duties in the Solomon Islands. Op Plumbob was the forerunner to Op Trek and HMA Ships Tobruk and Manoora participated in both operations. I am writing to question the apparent difference in Conditions of Service (COS) between the two operations. Op Trek has been recognised with the appropriate COS but only the initial days of Op Plumbob have been equally recognised.

In June 2000 Tobruk conducted a much publicised Services Assisted Evacuation (SAE) of approx 480 Australian and approved foreign nationals from the Solomon Islands. Shortly after Tobruk delivered her valuable cargo to Australia the ship returned to the Solomon Islands for what was then thought to be a short period (10-14 days) to provide a secure, neutral venue for the signing of a ceasefire agreement between the two warring factions. The stated short period was constantly increased due to the slow and fluid nature of the ceasefire negotiations. An agreement was signed early August and Tobruk immediately sailed for Australia. It is this period of OP Plumbob I believe is not being duly considered in the determining of COS.

The time spent by Tobruk in the Solomon Islands was undertaken with extreme professionalism and dedication. Tobruk not only provided a safe, neutral venue for the cease-fire talks but also secure transport to and from the ship for delegates of the talks and other persons. The ship also provided a means of evacuation if this was again required, a safe haven for those Australians who remained on the island after the evacuation and emergency medical assistance if required. It was also hoped that the presence of Tobruk in Honiara Harbour would provide a stabilising influence.

It has been reported, even in Navy News, that on many occasions personnel would sight armed patrols and see and hear gunfire ashore as the warring parties continued fighting. It was also a common occurrence to see houses burned and to hear reports of kidnappings, acts of sabotage, and other deeds associated with a breakdown in civil order. On one occasion a running gun battle between the two factions took place as two boats traded shots while circling Tobruk.

It is with this in mind I wonder why the outstanding service provided by Tobruk, her crew and attached personnel has not received the recognition I believe it deserves. The conduct, professionalism and attitude of all personnel involved was exemplary. The actions of those involved brought credit, not only to themselves, but to the entire ADF.

I would also like to ask who is responsible for determining COS and if the conditions currently being applied to the majority of Op Plumbob are being or can be reconsidered.

S Brown
Toowoomba, QLD.

The opinions expressed in letters to the editor do not represent the views of the editor or the Navy. Sailors wishing to air their views through letters to the editor have access to the newspaper without using the chain of command. Letters may be edited. Preference will be given to letters of fewer than 300 words. The letter will be published only when it includes the author’s name, unit (where applicable), location and contact number. If the author has a genuine reason for remaining anonymous, he or she must still provide details to allow Navy Newspaper staff members to discuss the matter. Send your letters to:
The Editor — Navy Newspaper
R8-LG-039
Department of Defence, Canberra 2600; or email to:
navynews@defencenews.gov.au

.