From the moment the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain declared war on Germany, Australia was also at war. The date was 3rd of September 1939.
Given, Australia was at war with Germany and with German naval activity and hostilities in the Pacific, the need for minesweepers for Australia was considered by the War Cabinet in June 1940. Such need was reinforced by the subsequent sinking of MV Nimbin by mines off Port Stephens in December 1940, the trawler Millimumum off the NSW coast in March 1941, and by the later activities of the German raiders Orion and Pinguin and the captured Storstad. Pinguin laid mines between Sydney and Newcastle, off the Victorian coast and off Adelaide in October and November 1941. Two ships were subsequently lost off Victoria at Wilsons Promontory and Cape Otway, with another off Sydney and a further ship off Adelaide.
By January 1941, with the growing threat of mines around the Australian coast, the War Cabinet directed the requisition of a further nine coastal vessels for minesweeping.
At the time, the European war was demanding more from Australia, whilst to the north, there were menacing signs of war closer to home. Japan had invaded China in 1937 and was continuing its pursuit of victory. In 1940, the United States ended its commercial treaty with Japan, imposed sanctions and stopped exporting scrap iron, aviation fuel, machine tools and war materials. In late 1940 Japan signed a Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy placing them firmly with the enemy on the side of Hitler and Mussolini - against Britain and Australia. The month after Menzies’ statement, Japan entered into a neutrality agreement with Russia.
Twenty-four boats in total were required for all ports. Five were suggested for Sydney with two to be equipped with anti-submarine equipment. A schedule identified thirty eight Sydney based vessels for possible consideration. Of those, Miramar, Winbah, Seamist, Toomeree, Leilani, Lolita and Penelope had earlier been identified for transfer to the United Kingdom Admiralty for rescue work in the English Channel. They were never transferred. By April, the Naval Board had issued instructions for vessels to be “selected” and reports to be provided. By the end of May 1941, initial selections for requisition included Miramar, Silver Cloud, Seamist, Leilani and Steady Hour.
Even allowing for the greater efficiency and better performance of our new constructed Australian Minesweeping Vessels (AMS), it will be realised that the present planned programme falls far short of what was previously considered necessary to give security in circumstances in which the strategic position would obviously have been more favourable than can now by visualised.
The shipbuilding and requisition program did not include any allowance for casualties which could occur owing to losses from enemy action, minesweeping, collision or ordinary marine risk.
In July 1941, Japan placed 120,000 troops in Thailand and northern Indo-China – on the doorstep to Malaya and Singapore. The signs of a Pacific war were loud and clear and Australia needed ships.
* * *
Towards the end of March, the Naval Board directed negotiations be undertaken with Small. The negotiations were fruitful with Small amending his valuation to £3,000, which he was prepared to accept in £10 Bonds. The Department’s negotiator, a Mr Tennant of the Contract Board, concluded that as that sum was in excess of the £2,500, the negotiations were ‘fruitless’ and the only recourse was for an ‘Impressment Order’ to be issued. He recommended appropriate action should be taken by the ‘Navy Authorities’.
Small stood his ground, and on 4 May 1942, he wrote to Muirhead-Gould. Small rejected the offer of £2,500 as he considered it ‘most unreasonable’ and again confirmed he had purchased Lolita from Walker in January 1940 for ‘£3,200 cash’. He understood the original cost of the vessel to Walker was £3,800, and with a depreciation of £600 for the twenty months under his ownership, Small claimed his £3,350 was the reasonable value. Small also re-confirmed this value included £150 for work he had completed on the vessel, and confirmed he had installed 34 new batteries and had stripped and varnished her.
Small considered the difference between the Department’s offer of £2,500 and his value was ‘too great’. In addition, Small confirmed that prior to handing the vessel over to the Navy, he had received a valuation from a ‘Certified Marine Surveyor’ of £3,400. Small set out his position:
Therefore, in view of the good reports received from your Department and the perfect condition of the Lolita it is unreasonable to expect me to accept £2,500. I have already loaned the Commonwealth Government £4,000, £1,000 of which is free of interest and have made sacrifices in other directions to assist the War Effort. I am prepared in the case of the Lolita to accept £3,000 to be paid in Commonwealth War Bonds and submit this proposal for your consideration.
Following her requisition and commissioning, HMAS Lolita, with her commander Herbert Anderson and crew, carried out patrol duties at Port Kembla, Newcastle, Broken Bay and Sydney.
* * *
By early 1942, the Navy had gathered, a flotilla of Channel Patrol Boats - thirteen of Sydney’s finest high class pleasure cruisers, including Lolita.
Some owners willingly ‘sold’ their vessels, while the Navy was forced to compulsory acquire others – seize them and ‘sort-out’ the value and payment later – just as the Navy had done with Lolita. They were all commissioned into the Navy as His Majesty’s Australian Ships and were commanded by Navy officers and crewed by RAN sailors.
* * *
Notwithstanding earlier directions for some of the vessels to be assigned to other ports, on Sunday night, 31 May 1942, all vessels of the Hollywood Fleet were assembled in Sydney Harbour – all except HMAS Kiara which had earlier arrived for service at Darwin.
52 NAA: A5954, 514/1: Construction in Australia of Patrol Vessels., p.166
53 NAA: A5954, 514/1: Construction in Australia of Patrol Vessels., p.118, 120
54 Grose, P., A Very Rude Awakening, p.18. (Source not cited)
55 NAA: MP1049/5, 2026/2/384: Asdic for motor boats for inner anti-submarine patrol
56 NAA: MP138/1, 603/246/5464: Yarroma – Purchaser Std Vacuum Oil Co. Despite the requirement, Esmeralda and Toomeree would be the only vessels of the Hollywood Fleet with diesel engines. The remainder were powered by petrol engines.
57 ASDIC, known to Americans as Sonar, consists of an underwater transmitter and a receiver mounted under the ship. A signal is transmitted through the water. When it hits a submarine, it is reflected back to the station. The operator of the station determines the bearing and distance to the submarine.
58 NAA: A5954, 514/1: Construction in Australia of Patrol Vessels., p.93, 94
59 NAA: A5954, 735/2: Summaries of Decisions of the War Cabinet 1941., p.60
60 NAA: A5954, 514/1: Construction in Australia of Patrol Vessels., p 85
61 NAA: MP138/1, 603/246/6400: Lolita – Sinking due to explosion in engine room 13/6/45., p.69
62 See Appendix A - Comparative Purchasing Value.
63 NAA: MP138/1, 603/246/6400: Lolita - Sinking due to explosion in engine room 13/6/45., p.70
64 NAA: MP138/1, 603/246/6400: Lolita - Sinking due to explosion in engine room 13/6/45., p.68
65 Some authors have said that depth charge ‘throwers’ were installed. There is no evidence to support this and in any event, the light timber construction of the vessel (and other vessels of the Hollywood Fleet) would not provide sufficient structural support for the explosive operation of such devices.
66 NAA: MP138/1, 603/246/6400: Lolita - Sinking due to explosion in engine room 13/6/45, p.52. See Appendix H – Survey Report of Lolita.
67 NAA: MP138/1, 603/246/6400: Lolita - Sinking due to explosion in engine room 13/6/45, p.50. Throughout Anderson’s command of HMAS Lolita, he was referred to as holding the rank of Warrant Officer. The matter of his rank was clarified by the Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal in its Decision of 17 April 2013 (see Chapter – Anderson’s Appeal) where it was confirmed that on 1 September 1944, he held the rank of Commissioned Warrant Officer from the date of his enlistment being 15 September 1941.
68 Muirhead-Gould was appointed Commodore-in-Charge, Sydney on 3 February 1940. On 20 March 1942, he was appointed to the acting rank of Rear-Admiral and as Flag Officer-in-Charge, Sydney. He was an officer of the Royal Navy on loan to the Australian Commonwealth Naval Board. His appointment was terminated on 21 September 1944 and he reverted to the Royal Navy the following day.
69 NAA: MP138/1, 603/246/6400: Lolita - Sinking due to explosion in engine room 13/6/45, p.48
70 NAA: MP138/1, 603/246/6400: Lolita - Sinking due to explosion in engine room 13/6/45, p.42, 43
71 AWM Photograph 301905
72 NAA: MP138/1, 603/246/6400: Lolita - Sinking due to explosion in engine room 13/6/45, p.35
73 There is significant confusion regarding the names of both vessels. Svensen in The Halvorsen Story, uses both names – Seamist and Sea Mist in the body of his book, however, in his schedule of the Halvorsen vessels, he uses Seamist and Seamist II. In a range of advertisements promoting their business, Halvorsen refer to the Gale’s earlier 45ft cruiser as Seamist and to Seamist II for the later 60ft cruiser. The Australian National Maritime Museum refers to both vessels as Seamist and Seamist II. The International Power Boat and Aquatic Monthly magazine uses Seamist for the first vessel (November 1937). The Navy’s Contract Demand for the second vessel is for the purchase of Seamist (NAA MP138/1, 603/246/4966) yet the Purchase Agreement is for Sea Mist. Naval correspondence, directions and orders refer to the second Seamist as both Seamist and Sea Mist. The two Reports of Proceedings held by the AWM (AWM 78/309/1) contain both forms. The commendation from the Naval Board in October 1942 refers to Seamist. The Sydney Log (AWM 78/418/1) records Seamist being commissioned on 21 July 1941. I have therefore, adopted that form for this historical record. However, it should be noted that for Jack Davey, a later owner of the second vessel, she was named Sea Mist, (See The Australian Women’s Weekly, 8 November 1972) which has continued to be her name. I have therefore referred to her as Sea Mist from that time onwards. As for the first Seamist, constructed for R A Gale, she was always named Sea Mist in associated naval documents (NAA MP139/1, 603/246/2350).
74 The Sun (Sydney), 9 June 1946, p.5, 15 June 1946, p.4
75 NAA: MP138/1, 603/246/6400: Lolita - Sinking due to explosion in engine room 13/6/45, p.66
76 NAA: MP138/1, 603/246/6400: Lolita - Sinking due to explosion in engine room 13/6/45, p.66
77 NAA: MP138/1, 603/246/6400: Lolita - Sinking due to explosion in engine room 13/6/45, p.65
78 NAA: MP138/1, 603/246/6400: Lolita - Sinking due to explosion in engine room 13/6/45, p.48
79 NAA: SP338/1, 201/37 – (Japanese) Midget Submarine Attack on Sydney Harbour, May 31st June 1st 1942, p.44
80 NAA: SP338/1, 201/37 – (Japanese) Midget Submarine Attack on Sydney Harbour, May 31st June 1st 1942, p.216. See also Grose, P., A Very Rude Awakening, p.242. See AWM78, 418/1 – Sydney Log, p.172. This document is the Sydney Log which shows Nereus arrived from Broken Bay with Steady Hour on 4 May 1942. The Log also shows Winbah departing on 11 July for Broken Bay confirming she was also in Sydney Harbour on 31 May 1942.
81 NAA: MP1049/5, 2026/21/79 – Midget Submarine Attack on Sydney Harbour, p.24