Talk:HMAS Kuttabul (ship)

Why was the Kuttabul commissioned?

One question this article raises but doesn't answer is why she was commisioned in the first place. From the descriptions of the attack I have found on various sources, it seems that the Kuttabul was essentially being used as a unarmed floating dormitory permanently moored alongside at Green Island, and was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It seems unlikely that RAN would go to the trouble of commisioning her, appointing a commanding officer, etc. for a ship that was being used in such a non-independent, non-combatant fashion. It would be more normal for a hull used in this way to be simply regarded as a hulk or a piece of floating dockyard equipment.

Was there a previous or planned usage in a more military role?. -- Chris j wood 13:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As a follow on to that, I just found the following text on the RAN web site:

Commissioned on 01 Jan 1943, HMAS KUTTABUL is named after the converted ferry KUTTABUL, which was lost to enemy action in Sydney Harbour. In 1963 the current ships badge was approved, the badge retained the indigenous NSW waratah and the white St Andrews Cross from the house flag of Sydney Ferries Ltd. The word KUTTABUL is Aboriginal for wonderful.[1]

Given the way the normally precise Navy talks about the Kuttabul-the-ship without the HMAS honorific, I'm beginning to wonder if she actually ever was commissioned. It is possible the HMAS as applied to the ship is a misnomer, based on a confusion with Kuttabul-the-base, which definately is a commissioned 'ship'. Can anybody throw any light on this. -- Chris j wood 13:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I looked up Kuttabul today in Vic Cassells' For Those in Peril (1995; pp 35-36). He refers to it as "HMAS", whereas some vessels taken over by the navy during WW2 do not get the HMAS in his book. (Even the tiny channel patrol boats in the harbour were HMAS, including the unfortunately-named HMAS Lolita.) Cassells states that Kuttabul had no pennant number, but it did have a commanding officer. (I think Cassells has got one detail wrong, when he says that a visiting American "Squadron Leader" was among those killed in the sinking. I think he may be referring to the death of Lt Cantello in a plane crash during the shelling of June 8.) Like some others Cassells classifies Kuttabul as an "accommodation ship", but I believe "depot ship" is the correct classification.

By the way, I believe "SS" is not an official title, and the ship would have simply been Kuttabul when it was a pre-war ferry. Even bigger merchant vessels were officiall known simply as (e.g.) Neptuna etc at the time. Grant65 | Talk 15:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

HMAS Kuttabul was commissioned on the 26th of February 1941. She was requistioned from Sydney Ferries Ltd on 7th November 1940. Kuttabul was still owned by SFL at the time she was commissioned.

The 'SS' is a misnomer; none of the SFL fleet carried the initials either on their nameboards or in the official records of the company.

There's quite a bit of the history of this vessel missing from the article. If the article is only about 'HMAS Kuttabul' then it's probably ok, but the preceeding 20 years is missing an enormous amount of detail. Perhaps just a 'Kuttabul' page is needed for her ?

Blacklord 04:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Wooden Steamships in Australia category that was added as Kuttabul was a steel vessel (along with sister Koompartoo), not wood - see ref: "Sydney Ferry Fllets" by A M Prescott pg 72 for details of the vessel's construction. Blacklord —Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMAS Kuttabul (ship). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091019113436/http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Sea_Talk_2006-winter.pdf to http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Sea_Talk_2006-winter.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)