Talk:Clearance Diving Branch (RAN)

Gaps in the unit number sequence

What happened to Diving Teams 2 and 5? Anthony Appleyard 08:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

They don't exist. The Bryce (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RAN dive team 1 crest.gif

Image:RAN dive team 1 crest.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RAN dive team 4 crest.gif

Image:RAN dive team 4 crest.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RAN mine and clearence diving forces crest.gif

Image:RAN mine and clearence diving forces crest.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Commando Frogmen?

Why is it in some publications that it is stated that these guys are NOT Special Forces and in others that they are? Which is it? Do these guys do commando missions against land targets as well? Can they be considered the RAN's version of the SAS? Are they roughly analagous to the U.S. Navy SEALs or the SBS?121.216.13.152 (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

122.49.154.137 (talk)Well they are definately part of TAG - i.e. the Tactical Assault Groups that do counter terrorist ops for Aust - and the rest f the TAGs are SF - I think they are SF. Where I think the confusion arises is that some of the roles they perform are not SF. E.g. EOD, acting as ship's divers etc. I think this is probably because in the Royal Australian Navy CDTs do the same roles as several different rates in other navies, and sme of the roles are SF and some are not. Given that they do perform beach recon, emplacing charges for maritime raids and CT work I'd say they are definitely SF. A little bit of searching and I find this RAn recruiting page http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/navy/jobs/ClearanceDiver/ which decribes the CD job as "A combination of diving, demolitions, explosive ordnance disposal and special forces employment at sea and shore certainly makes for some maritime adventure". And "CDs are employed in Special Forces roles at the TAG (E). TAG (E) is part of 2 Commando Regiment". So as I say I think the confusion comes from the fact that some of the CD roles are SF and some perhaps are not.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.154.137 (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC) 

They're not considered Special Forces, even though some of their roles fall within the realm of what is considered special operations. Yes the waterborne troop of TAG East is staffed with between 30-40 CDs but so what? It does not make the entire force a Special Forces unit. And plus the Navy Brass does not like to label them directly as Special Forces, lest they'd be asked to relinquish control of them to SOCOMD, which they will NEVER do. I guess that's what happens when you "unify" the military; the reason you have the Australian Defence Force. If a role or mission falls or supposedly encroaches into other services' territory then that capability will be assigned to them. As you may notice, the Air Force does not have ANY special forces unit (ADGs aren't SF), and the Navy's CDT's do not have more in-depth land warfare operations capability. Also the Navy doesn't have an offensive fixed-wing strike force in its fleet air arm; The Air Force has sold the fantasy that their aircraft can provide effective cover for the Navy's ships. What this means is that the bean counters are happy at the expense of capability. 121.217.203.59 (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

CDT2

According to the RAN battle honours list ("Royal Australian Navy Ship/Unit Battle Honours" (PDF). Royal Australian Navy. 1 March 2010. Retrieved 14 March 2010.), there is/was a Clearance Diving Team 2, which served in Vietnam and the first Gulf War. Does anyone have any info to add to the article regarding this unit? -- saberwyn 01:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Clearance Diving Branch are considered special forces

I consider them special forces but not dedicated ones like the SEALS or the SBS. They do counter terrorism with TAG-East and carry out special recon missions but also do clearance diver things. They're not just 'clearance divers' but 'military divers' since their roles cover the whole scope of military diving including acting as frogmen and doing support work like disabling mines. Kind regards Darth Tomotron (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, and not what individual editors think. Please find a reference to a reliable source that supports a view that the CDTs are special forces if you want to add this. I don't think that it's the case - these are general purpose diving units, which do rather mundane jobs such as unfouling the propellers of ships as well as engineering tasks and reconnaissance roles. They are not actually comparable to the SEALs or SBS. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The job website https://www.defencejobs.gov.au/jobs/Navy/clearance-diver suggests they are involved in special operations so they are classified as military divers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomotron (talk • contribs) 11:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The term "special operations" appears nowhere on the page. It notes that some clearance divers are selected to be attached to the 2nd Commando Regiment's Tactical Assault Group-East though. As discussed elsewhere, this then requires further specialist training. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

http://www.navy.gov.au/about/organisation/clearance-diving-teams in the TAG section it suggests special forces roles, maybe or maybe not? Darth Tomotron (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I'm going to go ahead using the above source unless you object to this decision? Regards Darth Tomotron (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The article states "employed in Special Forces roles at the TAG (E)" and is referring to Clearance Divers (CDs) who have left the Branch, having passed selection for 2 Cdo Regt and joined the TAG(E). The CDs are no longer part of the Branch and are considered to have a "Special Forces position" in the Army Special Operations Command. TAG(E) is not part of the Branch. Clearance divers return to the Branch from TAG(E) with new skill sets such as Level 4 boarding skills. The RAN utilised these TAG qualified CDs in Operation MANITOU with the Enhanced Boarding Capability (EBC) until 2012 when regular boarding parties assumed this role. In 2013, there was a restructure of the teams with a Maritime counter terrorism-explosive ordnance disposal (MCT-EOD) element formed that would be using TAG qualified CDs. I assume that this is integrating the CDs into a TAG (West or East) to provide EOD and IEDD during direct action missions to support the SASR or the Commando/TAG CD divers. Select SOER personnel have similar duties for land based missions and receive additional training to be able to integrate. However, there has been no mention of the MCT-EOD element since 2013 and there has been a restructure of the teams with at minimum the amalgamation of the MTO and MCM elements to form a Expeditionary Reconnaissance and Clearance (ERC) element. During this time, the Canberra class has been commissioned, with the Teams responsible for supporting 2RAR which may have precipitated a change in team structure. If there was still a MCT-EOD element, this would be considered a special operations role for that element. The role parameter in the infobox has counter terrorism for MCT-EOD. The Royal Navy Fleet Diving Group clearance divers have a similar role as do the United States Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal divers both integrating with special forces units. The Fleet Diving Group and USN EOD units are not categorised as a special forces unit. In regards to the ERC element, comprising Very Shallow Water Mine Counter Measures (VSW MCM) and reconnaissance, the CDs will predominately stay in the water and receive minimal Army infantry/reconnaissance training unlike SASR swimmer assault, SEALs or SBS training. In the past, they received resistance to interrogation RTI training and I assume this continues. The CDs once received parachuting training but have not for several decades unlike the USN EOD divers. Clearance Diving means "their roles cover the whole scope of military diving" being a jack of all trades as oppose to larger militarises in which several units perform these roles. From a Contact magazine article in 2004, that quotes Lieutenant Commander Steve Bliss of CDT4, "CDs are often described as “special forces” in the military sense or mistaken for Navy SEALS. “We are neither. We are Royal Australian Navy Clearance Divers." If there is a MCT-EOD element this is providing support to special forces. I object to categorising the unit as special forces. It is clearance diving.--Melbguy05 (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasons and sources! Here's my solution to the issue, we keep the 'type' as 'clearance diving' but we include 'special operations' as a 'role'. How does that sound? Kind regards Darth Tomotron (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

No sources appear to support that. Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I really don't understand your logic, you put Clearance Divers in special forces everywhere else but not on this page so then why are they in those places anyway? Darth Tomotron (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

References