Talk:Maroubra Force

WP:MilHist Assessment

A very nice start; the text is detailed and seemingly thorough, upon a cursory examination. But there is nothing else here. A military unit infobox would be a huge help, as would a picture, references, and a "see also" or "external links" section. LordAmeth 13:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Life of the force?

McCarthy makes no further mention of the force after the relief of Porter just before Isurava. The 39th was withdrawn 5 Sep (McC p 220) and most of the 53rd earlier (2nd except for a company left at Myola as work detail for a short period). With the departure of the 39th and the arrival of the 2/27th, the formation defending the track was the 21st Bde. The hand-over to Potts is a relief in place by the headquarters. I believe that Brune (A B of a P) makes a last reference on about 5 Sep. The AWM documentation appears silent on this.

I believe that the article, by indicating a much longer life of the 'Force' is in error. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

G'day, I agree that there is uncertainty as to when the force existed. However, I'm pretty certain that Potts commanded Maroubra Force for a period. From Brune p. 236, "Potts handed over his command to Brigadier Porter on 10 September near Nauro [before Ioribaiwa]... The first thing Porter did when he assumed command of Maroubra Force, therefore, was to withdraw". From Brune p. 238, "superb efforts of Potts and Maroubra Force" (in relation to the fighting withdrawal back to Ioribaiwa in mid-September, not early September) and he goes on to imply that 21st Bde belonged to Maroubra Force on p. 243 "Blamey arrived at Port Moresby on 12 September... at this time Maroubra Force had withdrawn to Ioribaiwa but that Eather's 25th was set to begin operations near the village the following day." Anderson 2014 p. 70: "the arrival of the 21st Brigade added starch to Maroubra Force's defence at [Isurava]". Alan Tucker states Maroubra Force took part in the fighting around Buna and Gona: [1]. That said, I can't find mention of it in the more academic works. When talking about the fighting around Buna-Gona, Keogh (p. 260) says Porter commanded the 30th Brigade, so I would say that Maroubra Force possibly ceased to exist as a reporting command in mid-September, with its former elements simply reverting to previous command/reporting structures. Not sure, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This indicates that Eather took over Maroubra Force for the fighting at Ioribaiwa: [2]. Regards., AustralianRupert (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This, by author Chris Chant, states that Maroubra Force fought around Gona: [3]

@AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC), thanks for the comments. It appears that the codeword was for the initial operation and not an "offical" force title/reporting command. It would certainly explain the absence of source material.

"Several days later Blamey ordered Morris to take further steps to defend the north coast and secure the Kokoda area, and on 22 June Morris received orders to “send white troops” to defend the overland route. The code name for the operation was “Maroubra”. The following day, Morris told Brigadier Selwyn Porter that a company from the 39th Battalion of his 30th Brigade would be sent to Kokoda. The rest of the battalion was to follow. Maroubra Force, as it became known, was to consist of the 39th Battalion, the PIB, and attached supporting units. The force was to delay any enemy advance from Awala to Kokoda, and stop any Japanese movement towards Moresby."[4]

Op order 17 confirms that Maroubra is the Op name which is essentially the defence of Kokoda and track.[5] NGF op diary refers to "Maroubra Operation" advance party departing 7 Jul[6] but then appoint LT Col Owers as OC "Maroubra Force" on 22nd. Appendix D2 refers and places the force under direct command of NGF. Maj Cameron was made acting commander on Owers death. Porter left PM to take command of Force 13 Aug. [7] and took command 18 Aug. Potts took command of Force on 23 Aug. Report from Maroubra Force on 5 Sep. [8] 11 Sep porter takes Cmd of Maroubra Force. Diary enteries as Moaroubra Force till 30 Sep. 28 Oct Vasey to take command of "Maroubra" not "Maroubra Force".[9] NGF Force location statement as at 31 Oct does not list 'Maroubra" as a force (but does, Kanga and Milne). Op order 42 of 4 Nov issued for Buna-Gona operation does not mention "Maroubra Force".[10] From 18 Nov, SITREPs were reported By 7 Div but prior to this, by Maroubra - ie Maroubra Force appears to effectively cease with commencement of Buna-Gona.

The main block quote also refers to Allen having taken command of Maroubra Force in around mid October. Maroubra Force is used to refer to the "fighting" force and the senior HQ in direct command of the battle. Initially, this was 39th Bn under Owers and then Cameron. This passed from 30 Bde to 21 Bde and then 7 Div - ie, whoever was Johnny on the spot. This accounts for why there is no separate force diary. Distribution lists do not list the force separately.Cinderella157 (talk) 07:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

PS, have a look at ref 10? I don't own a copy of Brune so I can't check it. Refs 10 and 11 don't look Kosher? They seem to be saying something that isn't in the references.Cinderella157 (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

G'day, I've had a go at reworking the article using a few of the refs mentioned above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@AustralianRupertNot certain when you saw my stuff below. There are some inconsistencies and issues with weight in what still exists.Cinderella157 (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

G'day, yes, I've seen it. Still looking at it, but I'm concerned by the way it starts, to be honest, and think that it is possibly going into WP:SYNTH territory. Regarding the current text, I'm happy to keep tweaking if you can clarify what you think has been given undue weight. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert The op order is interesting reading and starts at pdf page 53.[11] Appreciate what you are saying about synth but the sources are there. It is all a question of weight. It is a force, by association with the operation name. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed that the op order does refer to Comdt. MAROUBRA Force at para 8. However, I think what I have said about it being an artifact is still valid. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

revision? use like a sandpit

Maroubra was the code word assigned to the operation for the forward defence of Port Moresby based on Kokoda. Maroubra Force referred to the units (initially) assigned to conduct this operation. This consisted of the 39th Battalion (less one company), the Papuan Infantry Battalion, with detrachments from 3rd Field Ambulance, Austraian Army Service Corps and Australian Army Ordinance Corps. It was under command of Lieutenant Colonel William Owen. The force reported directly to New Guinea Force. When Owen was killed in fighting around Kokoda Track Campaign Major Allan Cameron, brigade major of the 30th Brigade, was made acting commander of both the 39th Battalion and the force.

The force was joined by the 53rd Battalion and the 30th Brigade headquarters under Brigadier Selwyn Porter, commanding the force. These two militia battalions were to be relieved by 2/14th Battalion and the 2/16 Battalion. In doing so, command of the combined force was assumed by Headquarters 21st Brigade, under Brigadier Arnold Potts on ?? (ref McC). When the two militia battalions were finally relieved following the Battle of Isurava, the third battalion of the 21st Brigade, the 2/27th Battalion was sent forward. The last reference to Maroubra Force in the offical history is with Potts taking command from Porter immediately prior to the Battle of Isurava. With the withdrawal of the 39th and 52rd Battalions and 2/27th Battalion joining the rest of the 21st Brigade, the force defending the track ceased to be an ad hoc formation, however; the term "Maroubra Force" continued to be used in reports of Headquarters New Guinea Force to refer to the forces defending and subsequently advancing back along the Kokoda Track.

Maroubra Force is unlike some others, in that it was not a separate reporting command such as Kanga Force but rather, used existing formation headquarters in direct command of the battle - firstly at brigade level and then, the 7th Division. (as note: it appears to have been used as a convenient and interchangeable term for the particular formation with direct responsibility for conduct of the battle at any particular time) Distribution list for orders did not list "Maroubra Force" but the specific formation headquarters relevant at the time. Diary entries and situation reports for New Guinea Force appear as "Maroubra Force", "Maroubra Operations" or simply, "Maroubra". Some authors have referred to Maroubra Force participating in battle at Buna-Gona that followed the Kokoda Track campaign.(get ref) These appear to be a reference to either 30th Brigade, under Porter, the 39th Battalion or 55th/53rd Battalion (which was an amalgamated battalion and did not, as a distinct unit, participate in the Kokoda Track campaign and was therefore, not part of Maroubra Force). While the 30th Brigade and 39th Battalion were part of Maroubra Force at the start of the Kokoda Track campaign, they did not maintain this designation into Buna-Gona. The last reference to Maroubra in the New Guinea Force diary is for 18 November 1942, effectively the commencement of the Buna-Gona operation. The operational order for this was issued to 7th Division, dated 4 November 1942. It makes no mention of Maroubra Force. A force distribution return by New Guinea Force does not identify Maroubra Force as a formation.

Comment on draft

Hi all, just throwing up a rough draft (above) for comment. Pls feel free to edit like a sand pit and put any comments down here. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

Lt Col Honner arrives at Isurava and assumes command of the 39th Batallion from Cameron... on 16 Aug [12] Porter, then moving up the track, took command shortly after, followed by Potts, Immediately before Isurava.Cinderella157 (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The last para states "following both battles the 39th Battalion mustered barely 30 survivors" issue with "survivors", implying the rest dead and most of the casualties or sick occurred at Buna-Gona? I can add up deaths for the battalion from James but don't have a figure for wounded or what the starting strength was.Cinderella157 (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

cite book|last1=James|first1=Bill|title=Field Guide to the Kokoda Track: An Historical Guide to the Lost Battlefields|date=2008|publisher=Kokoda Press|location=Lane Cove|isbn= 9780977570409|ref=harv

James pp354-389 lists 55 of the 39th died all causes in fighting at kokoda to Isurava and 70 fighting at Gona and Sanananda. (pp440-471) Figure was obtained by counting from lists.Cinderella157 (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Second last para gives "peak strength". Ref is for second sentence and not first so peak strength is unreferenced! The batton passed to 7th Div with a higher peak strength. Safest to delete?Cinderella157 (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The peak strength bit appears to have come from Chant, and is in fact a direct quote, so I've tried to attribute this more appropriately now. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Does anybody have a copy of the James reference used here to check that it does say that the Maroubra Force was relieved by 16 and 25 Bde as per ref 7. There is no doubt that 21 Bde was relieved. Is inconsistent with war diary of NGF that refers to 7 Div as Maroubra.Cinderella157 (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Checked James, and reworded. It was actually from Chant, but I didn't know this when I went hunting for refs for the original text. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"Elements of Maroubra Force later participated in the fighting around Gona;[3] Porter's 30th Brigade was one of the Maroubra Force elements that was later committed to the fighting around Buna and Gona." True elements did participate but it was a 7 Div op. Does it add value to the article and 30 Bde had a totally different make up?Cinderella157 (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Added a mention of the 7 Division. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"which undertook the subsequent counter-offensive which drove the Japanese back to their beachheads at Buna, Gona and Sanananda on the Papuan north coast.[8] At the Battle of Buna–Gona in November 1942 – January 1943, the 30th Brigade in turn reinforced the 18th and 25th Brigades besieging Buna and Gona, and was involved in the successful climax of the battle around the Japanese beachhead there.[9]" getting away from the issue? Probably better served by a "for further detal see" ? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a pretty short article, so I think it adds to the context. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

In the NGF diary, Maroubra is used synonymously (and not consistantly) for the fighting along the track and the formation engaged. It is by association with the original operation code name and not because it was officially designated as Maroubra Force. McCarthy used it as a convenient lable (and not unreasonably) which has since become an artifact.

"Different authors and historians have used 'Maroubra Force' to variously describe the units engaged in the campaign at different stages." (add refs here) I think that this (or something like it should be added at some suitable point)Cinderella157 (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Got my head around this, (I think)

@AustralianRupert and any body else that is interested) Hi, After much reading through diaries and other works ... Firstly, this was a very fluid period. Units were swaped in and out of formations at both brigade and higher levels. Also, units were not sent forward at their full establishment but only rifle companies. The 2/27 even disappeared of the ORBAT for a while! I may not get all the dates right, right now but here is the gist and I can provide references.

Morris got told he had to send "white" troops forward to defend Moresby from the vicinity of Kokoda. NGF op ord 20(?) was for the deployment of 39th (less coy) to Kododa plus PIR in situ and other attachments. Code word for op was Maroubra. Thereafter, forces assigned to op were referred to as "Maroubra Force" or "Maroubra operation" - as distinct from a "reporting" force Communications were under this code word. When the proverbial hit the fan, a new commander was appointed to Maroubra force or reinforcements were sent to Maroubra force. It was not a "force" but a code word used to identify the forward command along the track (even after events over-took the original op). It was a security measure to identify who was actually leading the rock show and who were the members of the band. About mid August, NGF devolved direct responsibility for defence of Moresby to 7 Div (consisting of 14, 21 an 30 Bde I think - the nominal 7 div was still on the boat). 7 Div and NGF called the pointy end Maroubra (force) up to about md (17?) Sep then 7 Div became the pointy end and NGF started calling it Maroubra - right through to the start of Buna-Gona. Actually, sitreps stop calling it Maroubra on 18 Nov (somebody forgot to tell somebody ... ). The problem is that different authors use it to mean different things at different times - even after the fact and down the line (probably because they have just read what somebody else wrote and didn't get their facts straight or because it was a convenient label). The trick is, how to preserve the facts while acknowledging the "reliable" sources. It comes down to "weight". I acknowledge the distinction Wiki makes between reliable sources and "fact" but nor should Wiki create, distort or perpetuate an artifact, misrepresentation or untruth when there is a clear course by which appropriate weight cab negate such a disservice. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for digging into this. I agree that you are probably right in your analysis; however, without secondary sources that support the hypothesis, it is difficult to join all the dots together neatly without falling into the trap of engaging in original research and synthesis. You say that there is a "clear course" but to be honest I'm not seeing it. Anyway, I've had a go at further reworking the article to try to contrast the sources without synthesizing (hopefully). Anyway, it is way too late and its been a long week, so it's lights out for me. Will come back tomorrow if I am able. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert it just occurred to me, that as you are working on the Kokoda campaign, so here is an opportunity to provide a timeline based order of battle since Maroubra Force is effectively just that. 7 Div became Maroubra Force just after Ioribaiwa. Also, while I had read Brune, reading McCarthy and then Wiki on Ioribaiwa, it took me a bit to work out where th 2/27th had disappeared to until I found them in Brune again but they had disappeared off the ORBAT quite literally. An order of Battle article could then have a redirect from "Maroubra Force". This then allows the force to be discussed without pressure of putting Maroubra Force in bold in the opening line of the lead. A sentence to effect:"Different authors and historians have used 'Maroubra Force' to variously describe the units engaged in the campaign at different stages", Would put things in perspective and it is a simple statement of fact. I think that a very limited use of primary sources isn't unwarranted in the circumstances, particularly where they are available online - eg the original op order. This approach also allows things like the lack of artillery support to be introduced. Am putting up another suggestion. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, an ORBAT would be a good idea, but I would argue that it could exist in parallel to this article. Potentially it could be created as Allied order of battle for the Kokoda Track campaign or something similar (perhaps the Japanese and Allied orders of battle could be combined into just Order of battle for the Kokoda Track campaign? The artillery issue below should be mentioned in both, probably, IMO, as it was quite significant I believe. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate working with you and the "weight" is certainly a lot better. My rationale is the Maroubra force is who ever is at the pointy end. Your ref to Vasey taking command and stireps I have quoted to 17 Nov show this. So, whoever is at the pointy end is the ORBAT, so logically, the two are one in the same? Cinderella157 (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Lack of artillery support

Perhaps consider adding something about this given the impact it had on the campaign? Horner The Gunners p. 341 is probably a good reference for this. Anotherclown (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anotherclown: G'day, yes that's a good idea. How much detail do you propose, and which section do you think it would be best in? Sorry, I can't really think straight today, my body is wracked with pain at the moment from PT on Friday...I'm not a fan of the new packs and TBAS. Doesn't seem to sit right for stomps... getting old, I guess. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it might work in the strength section, maybe a sentence only. Something along the lines of my cmts on the Battle of Isurava GA perhaps? Anotherclown (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anotherclown: Added something on this now. Please feel free to adjust as necessary. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me, all the best. Anotherclown (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

A suggested new start - use as sandpit

Lead

"Maroubra" was the operational code word used to designate Allied forces deployed in the "forward area" on the Kokoda Track, involved in the Kokoda Track Campaign of the Pacific War, World War II. The force was initially deployed to Kokoda for the forward defence of port Moresby. The force initially detailed this task was the 39th Battalion with the PIB and other supporting elements under command. The codename "Maroubra", was used to refer to the troops in the forward area, throughout the Kokoda Track campaign.

Formed on 21 June 1942, Maroubra Force initially consisted of part-time Militia units and was under the command of Major General Basil Morris's New Guinea Force. Reinforced by the veteran Second Australian Imperial Force, 7th Division, Maroubra Force was instrumental in blunting the Japanese advance on Port Moresby, fighting it to a standstill in September, before undertaking a counter-attack in October and November 1942, which drove the Japanese back to their beachheads around Buna–Gona, which was in turn the scene of heavy fighting between November 1942 and January 1943.

History

In mid-1942, Major General Basil Morris, commander of New Guinea Force, was ordrer by LHQ to deploy troops – up to the size of an infantry battalion – for the forward defence of Port Moresby, based around Kokoda. This task was assigned to the 39th Infantry Battalion, which had previously been deployed as a garrison force around Port Moresby. It was sent overland via the Kokoda Track to secure the Kokoda area and prepare to defend against a predicted Japanese advance. The Papuan Infantry Battalion of about 300 native troops with white officers, was already north of the Owen Stanley Range at the entrance of the Kokoda Track and came under command of the 39th Battalion along with detachments from 3rd Field Ambulance, Australian Army Service Corps and Australian Army Ordnance Corps that were also sent forward. The code name assigned for the operation was "Maroubra". It was referred to as the Maroubra operation (in NGF diary - Note that Chant calls it Operation Maroubra) and the forces detailed for this task, as Maroubra Force. Events quickly overtook the planned deployment, with the Japanese landing at Buna-Gona from 21 July 1942. With only a company of the battalion in position, patrols forward of Kokoda came in contact with the forces almost immediately, conducting an ambush on the evening of 22 July.(McNicil in Kokoda Track page, McC p124 say 23rd under Lt Chalk PIB)

"Maroubra Force" (or simply Maroubra) continued to be used as the Allied name for the troops in the "forward area" on the Kokoda Track, and was included in operational orders, situational reports and commanders' war diaries. Additionally, within the literature covering the campaign, many authors and historians have used the term "Maroubra Force" to variously describe the units engaged in the campaign at different stages. [13] The force initially deployed was placed under direct command of Headquarters NGF. With the arrival of advance elements of the 7th Division, command responsibility for the defence of Port Moresby, including the forward defence along the Kokoda Track (the Maroubra force), devolved to Headquarters 7th Division (with effect 18 August). As the fighting progressed, the 7th Division became fully engaged.(appoints Vasey to command ) The code name "Maroubra" then continued to be used to refer to the division until the end of the campaign.(as note: reference to the forward fighting force by code word concealed the disposition of the forces)

Rest of the article can continue to explain who was where and when but avoiding detail of engagements as this is for the main articles

Happy with most of what is written above, but can you please include your references? It is difficult to comment on whether the information is appropriate without demonstrating that it supported by appropriate references. Equally, some discussion of the engagements is required for the article to be complete. While it obviously doesn't have to go into the detail that each battle article goes into, a summary style recount of the fighting that MF took part in is required, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Some of the stuff about command might be in McC or Brune. Sure there are heaps of references for some of the more general stuff. Let me know if there is any detail that still concerns you and I will find a reference. Some of how you have dealt with the various authors in the main space could be incorporated here too. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

G'day, this looks fine to me. Happy if you wish to move it across. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maroubra Force. 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/20090525001451/http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/second_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67907 to http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/second_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67907

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)