Hmas Sydney

[teresa green]

While it is not strickly aviation, it was certainly the talk on many a flight deck today, and the airlines were born of the two wars, so stay with us tidbinbilla and let us rejoice at the finding of the Sydney, and to any of you who can lay claim to a relative our thoughts are with your family.

[wessex19]

so say all of us. Now we know where those fine young men are resting

[papi on]

T Green

Good post. Twas a day of hearing the news and whilst having no conection to the event, I spent quite a bit of time reflecting on what this would mean to those who do have a connection. Hopefully closure for those families affected and leave it as it is with maybe underwater photos of the ship in the war memorial and a declaration of an official memorial site.

My thoughts go out to the families of those brave young men.

[Agony]

Eternal Father, strong to save,
Whose arm hath bound the restless wave,
Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deep
Its own appointed limits keep;
Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,
For those in peril on the sea!
O Christ! Whose voice the waters heard
And hushed their raging at Thy word,
Who walked'st on the foaming deep,
And calm amidst its rage didst sleep;
Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,
For those in peril on the sea!
Most Holy Spirit! Who didst brood
Upon the chaos dark and rude,
And bid its angry tumult cease,
And give, for wild confusion, peace;
Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,
For those in peril on the sea!
O Trinity of love and power!
Our brethren shield in danger's hour;
From rock and tempest, fire and foe,
Protect them wheresoe'er they go;
Thus evermore shall rise to Thee
Glad hymns of praise from land and sea.

[Buster Hyman]

I was asked by someone the other day, why it was so important to find the Sydney. When I saw the faces of the families on the news, I thought it a no brainer really.

Whilst I give thanks to those that gave the ultimate sacrifice for our nation, I am also greatful to those who refused to give up the search. You have done a good deed today.:ok:

[Buster Hyman]

:=.........

[Old 'Un]

Agony: Spot on. Amen. (Hymn of the RN, I believe)

Buster: Agree wholeheartedly. Anyone who willingly puts their life on the line for the freedoms I enjoy earns my respect, doubly so if their life was lost.

There are parallels here to the Arizona at Pearl. While, from what I've heard and read, it would not be possible to erect a memorial such as that afforded those who perished at Pearl, their selfless intent and actions are worthy of some form of enduring memorial. Declaring the site a national memorial would be a suitable way to start.

May the souls of those who gave so much rest in peace.

Le vieux

[Critical Reynolds No]

Go to Gero and have look:
http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/waratsea/HMASsydney.html
http://www.geraldtontourist.com.au/content.asp?documentid=46
http://www.australianexplorer.com/postcards/wa_geraldton_hmas_sydney_memorial.htm

[teresa green]

The talk has always been since I was a lad that there was a possibility that a Jap sub was present (and this is before Pearl Harbour) and fired a couple of torpedoes into the "Sydney". The reason being the german ship had 5.9 inch guns and that did not seem enough to take out a heavy cruiser like the "Sydney". Even if they hit her magazines surely some would live to tell the tale. Why only one carley float? The wreck will be very interesting and if she has been hit on both sides??? It would open a can of worms, and a international incident that would bring some bitterness to Australian families (including mine) and a whole lot of "please explain" to the Japanese Govt. I imagine kevin07 would have to think long and hard if the camera shows both sides hit. Let it be or let it out? There was talk by fishermen in the area of a sub, and a lot of sandgropers who lived in the area believed a sub was around, and it certainly was not one of ours. Interesting times ahead.

[Craney]

I hope the wreck is largely left alone. I know the daughter of the Sydney's Captain - she last saw him when she was only 4 or 5. Despite what was said earlier in the thread this is still a raw and very personal issue for the families of those 645 sailors.

RIP

[Wiley]

There’s some bloke in the West who says he has letters written by RAAF and Army personnel who buried quite a large number of the dead from Sydney on a beach near Carnavon. This is the first I’ve ever heard of any of the Sydney’s dead being recovered (apart from the single body found and buried at Christmas Island).

If this is true, it brings all sorts of questions to mind that would set your average conspiracy theorist’s heart racing. However, I can’t help but think it might be an urban myth. Lots of merchantmen – more than many might imagine – were lost off the Australian coast during the war, and I can’t help but feel the dead found on the beach might have been from some other ship and the story that they were from Sydney took root fourth or fifth hand, and the story more or less grew in the telling, as such stories do.

If the bodies of some of the Sydney’s crew were found, you’d have to ask why the wartime government didn’t allow the families the ‘closure’ of burying their loved ones (as Mr Rudd is talking about now). I know the Navy had a very different attitude to returning their dead for burial to the other services, but if the bodies are ashore, it’s not quite the same as sewing them into a hammock with a link of anchor chain far out to sea and consigning them to the deep.

I know national security at a time of war can result in some really strange decisions, but you’d have to ask, if bodies were found, what would have caused the government not to announce this at the time? The fact that all hands were lost was hugely embarrassing to the Australian government and the RAN at the time. (A major warship lost with all hands to an unarmoured commerce raider is almost unbelievable, and some naval experts would quite happily drop the ‘almost’.) You’d think that recovering even some of the dead would have taken away some of the totality of the disaster.

Some might ask the obvious question: did the bodies show evidence of an atrocity – perhaps of the survivors having been machine gunned in the water so they could not give a differing version of events to the (let’s face it) self-serving version the Germans gave their captors? Even if you discount the Japanese submarine theory (which will never go away for many), did Detmers open fire before striking his Dutch colours, or perhaps use some other form of subterfuge that a court of law would consider against the rules of war? In an largely unarmoured commerce raider faced with a large, well-armoured warship, some would say he’d have been crazy NOT to have used every dirty trick in the book to gain some advantage, for even the most optimistic observer would say the outcome of any such engagement if it was to be fought even half way ‘fairly’ could go only one way.

At first glance, you’d think any hint that a mortal enemy had committed an atrocity on that scale would have been jumped on by the Allies for propaganda purposes. But who knows what was going on in the background at the time? Quite possibly, if the government had proof of an atrocity, they wanted to avoid what would have been the huge political complications any such announcement would throw upon them. Imagine it, an outraged population at home screaming for revenge, with the perpetrators already in Australian custody. Any court martial would have undoubtedly resulted in death sentences, certainly for Captain Detmers and who knows how many others of his crew – while the Germans held many thousands of Australian prisoners of war from North Africa and Greece/Crete.

The possibility of tit-for-tat ‘atrocity’ courts martial is obvious – and the Germans could have, (with some credibility), pressed charges on quite a few of the Australians they had captured in Crete, for the Australians had inflicted dreadful losses on the German paratroopers, who suffered such a high casualty rate, they never made a large scale drop again. (The losses the German paratroopers suffered on Crete almost surely saved Malta from an airborne assault, and if Malta had fallen to the Germans, it would almost certainly have resulted in the Allies losing the North African campaign.)

Quite a few accounts of the Crete battles say that a large number of the Germans died in circumstances that a lawyer (or Dr Goebbels!) could have turned into anything that suited them. The fact that the German paratroopers definitely shot many of the prisoners they took on Crete wouldn’t have surfaced then, nor the undeniable fact that in the first few hours of any airborne assault, taking prisoners – be either side – is simply not an option.

However, after all that postulating, there is also the pressing argument of Okham’s Razor – that the most simple explanation, something along the lines of the one the Germans gave, that the Australian Captain Burnett made an incredibly stupid blunder, is the real explanation. However, ever since first reading about the loss of Sydney, I’ve always had this niggle in my mind that won’t go away. How could the very experienced captain of a major warship put his ship in a position where it could be defeated by a commerce raider – a merchant ship with guns – and perhaps more importantly, how could 300+ of one crew survive such an engagement, almost all of them uninjured, and not a single one survive from the other ship? Anyone who has seen Sydney’s Carley float in the AWM and the many small, uniform bullet holes in it would be hard pressed not to ask similar questions.

[Freehills]

History of the Kormoran from the German side...

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/hilfskreuzer/kormoran.html

Captain Detmers appears to have been a fairly resourceful chap - even managing to escape from a POW camp in Australia.

Usually, cock-up (or co-incidence) >> conspiracy. Looks like the bridge and firecontrol was taken out in the first salvo, and from then Sydney was fighting blind.

This might explain the bullet holes in the float - they used machine guns too as the range was so close

"The automatic fire from the Kormoran’s 37mm and 20mm guns and heavy machines-guns was devastating, killing everybody on the bridge and decks, setting the Walrus seaplane on fire on its catapult, where it sat, engine running, but not ready for launching due to the catapult being trained inboard, and destroying all the lifeboats and rafts"

And as for no survivors and hits on both sides - this might help explain it

"Once again, the automatic fire from the Kormoran destroyed everything on Sydney’s starboard superstructure, and as with the previously devastated port side, this included all the lifeboats and rafts.
This is believed to have been the main reason for the loss of all 645 officers and men on board when she subsequently went down."

The Kormoran also hit Sydney with torpedoes, as well as 150mm shells (and 150mm is basically same calibre as Sydney's 6" guns)

Given the large numbers of German survivors (including 3 chinese laundrymen) I would think highly unlikely they would have all stuck to their story, for the rest of their lives, unless it was true.

[ampan]

A timely reminder that actual shooting & firing can occur in Dunnunda & Godzone (and let's not forget the bombing of Darwin).

But the Yanks will always bail us out, we think. Maybe. I'm sure that the USA will come to the defence of Australia, but I very much doubt that we in New Zealand will be on the same level in their list of priorities - for very good reason: we have, by act of our own parliament, told them to f*ck off.

[Buster Hyman]

Oh, I'm sure they'll help defend Middle Earth with you.

[ampan]

All 'Middle Earth' tapes are now in CA, USA. In NZ, all we have are some out-takes of Peter Jackson inhaling a couple of cheeseburgers.

[Wiley]

Thanks for the transcriptions, Freehills. I've read the book most of them came from, and I agree with the idea of cockup almost always beating conspiracy. However, after tuning in to Sydney talkback radio only briefly last week, I can assure you the conspiracy theorists, particularly those spouting the phantom Japanese submarine story, are thick on the ground and out in full force since the wrecks were located.

If only for the reasons already cited in most newspapers - the damage to relations with current important trading partners etc, this is the classic conspiracy theory. Whatever result a photographic survey of the to wrecks comes up with, the conspiracy theorists will reply with Mandy Rice Davies' classic retort to the Profumo Report, which whitewashed everyone still in power but the fall guy, John Prufomo: "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?"

Anyone familiar with investigations into major military disasters, (certainly in Australia, at least), will know that the fall guy who bears all the blame is almost always someone of a rank below flag rank. This is a case in point. The only explanation that does not dredge up possibilites no one wants to face, even to this day, is the senior officer on the spot making an extraordinary, totally inexplicable error of truly horrendous proportions, particularly if you accept that Burnett knew a commerce raider was in the area.

I seem to recall that the Court of Inquiry found that Burnett had done something similar (approaching too close) when intercepting a merchant ship somewhere near Ceylon a few months earlier and been reprimanded for it. But I direct readers back to Mandy Rice Davies' comment when they read comments like that in an official report.

The question many conspiracy theorists will ask is just how "resourceful" was Capt Detmers in regard to luring Sydney in to the killing range of his guns.

[yowie]

I remember a story of a Jap sub being sunk off Melville or Bathurst Island around the same time, apparently full of gold? Anyone heard of this?

[PLovett]

Craney

I doubt that the wreck will be much disturbed unless someone has some very expensive equipment. From the newspaper reports she lies at some 2,000 metres.

As to how it was possible for all the crew to perish, the report I read said the ship was lying on its keel with approximately 25 metres of the bow missing. The German crew told their interrogators that a torpedo had struck the Sydney between the A and B turrets. If that torpedo had weakened the hull to the point that it caused the bow to detach the ship would have sunk in seconds. There would have been no time to launch lifeboats or carley floats, especially as most of the crew would have been either fire fighting or caring for the injured.

I hope that both the wrecks are declared war graves and given legal protection. I understand the Australian government has reported the finding of the "Kormoron" to the German government with a view to their decision about any declaration.

[Octane]

I'm a little surprised it's been announced to the world the HMAS Sydney and the German raider have definitely been found 2 km deep based solely on sonar (or whatever the technology is) data. I'd of thought it prudent to await video evidence..........

Octane

[yowie]

Derek,
Interestly as reported to Aus mil authorities by the German Captain, 6 DAYS after the conflict!

[EffohX]

I can’t help but imagine the Sydney/Kormoran clash as if written by a Hollywood script writer. (’U571’ comes immediately to mind, but since this battle cannot be construed in any way as an Allied victory, they don’t have to have the USN winning this particular battle.)

Very resourceful German commerce raider captain, some 9,000 miles from home and very much in the enemy’s back yard, with absolutely no hope of back up, finds himself confronted by a major enemy warship.

He’s resourceful, but also a realist, and knows that even with nightfall fast approaching, his chances of slipping away or bluffing his way through a challenge from the enemy cruiser are slim to non-existent. But he can use guile, (and although he hasn’t seen Robert Mitchum’s USN destroyer captain outwit Kurt Jurgen’s U Boat captain in ’The Enemy Below’ by setting fires all over his decks, the Hollywood scriptwriter who’s writing this movie has).

So with the enemy cruiser still far off, he sends out a radio message that he’s under attack by a commerce raider - and floods a few compartments to establish a list (or more likely, bow or stern down, so it won’t affect his guns so badly), sets fires on his decks, maybe even puts a number of his crew into the boats, which pull well away from his ship. He then blinks away like mad on his signal lamp, begging for help in getting the large number of badly injured crew off the sinking ship, crew for whom there were no boats remaining because of damage from the raider’s guns. (Remember, this is Hollywood.)

At this point of the movie, you can imagine the Hollywood production team mulling over how they’re going to handle the next scene. Will be have a noble Brian Keith-style German captain a la ’Under 12 Flags’, (who’ll honourably lower the Dutch ensign and raise his German battle colours before dropping his guns’ covers, or a died in the wool, ‘resourceful’ Nazi, who’ll fire a brace of torpedoes without warning from his concealed under the waterline torpedo tubes after the enemy cruiser has pulled in close to rescue the crew of the ‘sinking’ ship?

Big problem now for the Hollywood team if they opt for scenario # 2, (which would be the only option that gave the commerce raider an even slim chance of sinking the enemy cruiser). What’s to become of the survivors from the enemy cruiser, whose account of the opening stages of the battle might not quite tally with that of the German crew?

Others have said it before me: the Germans, (or one German on the Kormaran’s crew, dubbed “a traitor, but not a liar” by other Kormaran survivors), have admitted to sending the false distress signal in an attempt to distract the Sydney. If that’s the case, why would a seasoned, well experienced professional cruiser captain come in to within 1000 yards broadside of an unknown ship when he knew that a German raider was in the area?

[teresa green]

Well we should know a lot more in a few days, if she is sitting upright as the sonar says hopefully a lot can be learnt, and information will be forthcoming (and not hidden) for the sake of the families and the general public. I was only a young bloke at the time, but I well remember my parents distress at the news of her sinking and the horror of losing so many young australians, my mother was inconsolable as was many around her even though no relatives were on board. Terrible times.

[Andu]

It could all turn into a real can of worms for all parties concerned if the photos of Sydney's superstructure show it to be relatively undamaged or there turns out to be three or four torpedo strikes on the wrong side of Sydney's hull.

As someone has already mentioned, some of the possible scenarios would make a hell of a movie. Wasn't it "The French Lieutenant's Woman" where they gave you two different endings? With this story, you could have (at least) three very different stories all leading to the same ending.

[roamingwolf]

Even if it looks like the sydney copped a torpedo or 2 no one will be able to tell you where they definitely came from.

Why would the capt of the sydney come broadside to another ship in a time of war and when they knew a raider was in the area?

Even if they were bow on to the German ship who is to say a sub did not hit the Sydney.
The truth is we will never know.

[Wiley]

If the German account of the battle is accurate, and Sydney's bridge, fire control and forward turrets were destroyed or set totally aflame by Kormorn's first salvos, you'd have to doff your cap to the junior officers and gunners of Sydney's aft turret(s?) who managed to sink the raider with independent fire - and so little loss of life on the Kormoran (accurate waterline shots?).

Hard to imagine that a captain who had trained and finely tuned such an effective crew (in what few would fail to acknowledge was was very much a first division naval battle area - the Mediterranean of 1940-41) was the same man who blithely sailed his ship into such a suicidal situation close alongside an unknown ship only minutes after receiving a radio report of a raider attacking a ship in the area.

[mustafagander]

Wiley,

AFAIK the skipper of the Sydney at the time was a newby who had lots of time on shore but bugger all sea time. He had been reprimanded for a similar event in the recent past. Even if he were not on the bridge, what standing orders did he leave for his watch keepers?

The guts of it is that Joe F#@%cked up badly and lost his ship over it.

Even those of us in the wavy navy know never!! to let a suspect inside his max range prior to ID.

RIP Sydney.

[lowerlobe]

That's a big call for someone who was not there and who like the rest of us can only guess as to what happened....especially as the Capt and crew are not here to defend their actions.

[OhSpareMe]

Hard to imagine that a captain who had trained and finely tuned such an effective crew (in what few would fail to acknowledge was was very much a first division naval battle area - the Mediterranean of 1940-41) was the same man who blithely sailed his ship into such a suicidal situation close alongside an unknown ship only minutes after receiving a radio report of a raider attacking a ship in the area.

It is very hard to imagine Wiley, because it was a different officer.

John Collins (later Sir John) was the C.O. during Sydney's Med Battle at Cape Spada. He was relieved by Capt Burnett, who took it up alongside the Kormoran.

[Wiley]

Ahhhh, thank you for that small but rather vital piece of information, ohspareme. It's quite a while since I read the book on the loss of Sydney, and I had forgotten the change in command not long before the loss of the ship.

Some might think it's even more extraordinary that a new captain would make such a major error a second time after being censured for making the same mistake earlier. (Or was the official censure over the earlier incident [was it near Columbo?] not put on record until after the ship was lost?)

High praise must go to Captain Collins then for having trained his crew to the degree that the gunnery officer(s) in the rear turret(s?) managed to sink their attacker after losing virtually all command and control. However, even allowing for the authority a captain exercises on naval ships then and now, you'd have to ask what the other officers on the bridge said to Captain Burnett when (if?) he ordered the ship in close to the unknown ship.

Major thread drift I know, but if anyone doubts the almost almost vertical authority gradient on RAN warships, if not today, then certainly as late as the mid 60s, I highly recommend the book written by the officer who was the First Mate of HMAS 'Voyager' until just before its loss in the collision with HMAS 'Melbourne' in 1964. (Pun intended), it is a very sobering read. Sorry, I can't remember the title, but I'm sure someone among the readers of this thread will be able to give it to us.

[teresa green]

I think what has got most of us stumped is no wreckage. Ok the great whites would have certainly been there along with their mates ( I well remember seeing and chasing sharks in a DC3 in that area) but timber, paper, chairs, carley floats, no wreckage, no oil slicks, like she never existed. I checked the WX for that time, calm seas, indeed for another ten days after her sinking, just calm. The RAAF saw nothing nor any sightings of wreckage from other vessels. How the hell could a ship that size leave no wreckage?????

[Buster Hyman]

Depends where they were llooking I suppose. What was the SAR like back then?:confused:

[Agony]

Re Voyager, the book is called "Breaking Ranks" if I remember correctly. An outstanding read. :ok:

[Fubaar]

“Breaking Ranks” by David Salter

The remarkable story behind the cover up of the voyager incident.
An extraordinary story with all the elements of an epic thriller: a dramatic naval disaster,
tragic loss of life, exploits of bravery, court-room action, political intrigue, cover-ups and
conspiracies. written by the whistleblower who has finally decided to put pen to paper.

ISBN 9781740513159

I’ve have to agree with Wiley and Agony in highly recommending this book. What shocked me was his assertion that if he’d gone public (within the Navy) on the Voyager’s captain’s alcoholism during an earlier cruise, the Navy would have declared him to be mentally unstable and would have thrown him into a mental asylum. I thought it was only the Russians who employed tactics like that against their own.

What’s even more shocking is how all the people who played along with the farce and outright lies of the first Voyager Royal Commission all went on to enjoy fast promotion and very good careers, one even making it to be Governor of NSW, (who made a death bed confession that he’d lied in his teeth giving evidence at the commission).

Just to prove this isn't total thread creep, after reading this book, you could find yourself ready to believe even the most fanciful stories alleging a cover up of the Sydney disaster.

[teresa green]

Don't think so Buster, at that time we were at war with Germany, so radio silence was paramount. Apparently she amended a ETA by radio to am 20th Nov (she was on her way back from escorting a troop ship of Australian diggers to the Sunda Straits) and after that nothing. Locals reported large flashes and booms of the coast of Geraldton at night (not sure what day) and as navel command became anxious, and no radio message forthcoming from her, the RAAF sent out a Hudson to where the lights had been seen, no ship, no wreckage. The poor buggers could have been floating around for a couple of days (if any survived) before drowning or eaten. There was futher confusion as the german skipper who had by then been picked up,recorded the battle had taken place SOUTH of PER. A deliberate ploy by him. All in all in took five days for a full seach to take place, which was a bloody disgrace. I will still put my money on a Jap sub involved.:suspect::suspect:

[lowerlobe]

If the Capt and crew of the Kormoran told lies to the Australian authorities there could only be one reason.If it was a genuine military action they would not have anything to hide.

Why would the Capt tell or give the wrong location for the battle?

If only to delay or prevent any possible rescue and conflicting story coming out from the Sydney's crew.

Imagine for a moment if the Sydney had done the right thing and approached the Kormoran bow on.While this was taking place a German or Japanese Sub hits the Sydney with a torpedo(s) and then the Kormoran opens up.The Sydney turns away trying to escape while firing at the Kormoran.As the Sydney moves away the sub finishes her off.....

Perhaps the Kormoran was re-supplying a German U-Boat?

Who knows ?

[parabellum]

I've read it here on the internet and in Australian papers that the leader of the current search expedition and the head of Find the Sydney Foundation have both said that the Sydney was found almost exactly where the captain of the Kormoran said she would be when he was questioned six days after the Sydney sank. The real mystery is why hasn't that area been searched before now?

[QSK?]

Locals reported large flashes and booms of the coast of Geraldton at night...

My mother was a nurse at Geraldton hospital on the night in question and she told me many years ago that she could clearly see large flashes over the horizon accompanied by thunder-like sounds. She said all the nurses were intrigued because the evening sky was very clear with no evidence of cloud or storms present. It was only later when the government released more details on the battle were they able to link what they saw with what happened.

[Wiley]

lowerlobe, post war records showed that no German U Boat was anywhere near the area at the time.

There was a Japanese submarine (later lost near Bathurst Island, I think, on what would have been the same cruise) that might possibly have been in the area at the time, but according the experts, probably wasn't. And Japan wasn't yet in the war, and even the most rabid conspiracy theorist would have trouble getting his head around how a mere submarine captain would come to the conclusion that he should attack a warship of a nation his country was not at war with while it was in its own home waters and in those circumstances.

Of course, the conspiracy theorists would say that records can be faked and the Japanese submarine was involved in something with the Kormoran so secret and politically explosive, it had to destroy Sydney in case it had been seen in company with the Kormoran. (But if Sydney's crew had even thought they'd glimpsed a submarine, you can guarantee the last thing they'd have been doing was hoving to close alongside the other ship - or anywhere in the area, for that matter.)

It's been said before - the phantom Japanese submarine is perfect grist for a conspiracy theory, because if it turned out to be true, it almost certainly would never be made public, even after all this time, for the political fallout would be immense. So those who believe in it, (half the listeners to 2GB, from what I can ascertain), they'll just nod wisely and say "Well, what else would they say?"

World War 2 is now far enough behind us that it's beginning to gain a patina of 'an honourable war between honourable enemies' to some of the younger generation, a bit like today's politicians and many in the media like to paint Gallipoli, (which in fact was an absolute horror - and a ballsup - for all concerned, and involved some very, very nasty fighting at very close quarters, and certinly not much 'honour' on either side).

What many forget is that the Kormoran's crew belonged to a nation that was gassing people en masse in Eastern Europe at the time, and a navy whose U Boat crews had on occasion machine-gunned survivors in the water. Admittedly, most if not all such cases were when the survival of the U Boat was at stake, like they had to prevent the other side knowing they were in the area. (But that could be said of the situation Detmers found himself in, both before and, even moreso, after the battle with Sydney, I think, particularly if he'd had to employ subterfuge that some might claim breached the rules of war.I know what I would have done in the same situation - (along with, I suspect, 99.9% of commerce raider captains faced with the same situation) - and it would NOT have involved giving my superior enemy so much as a nanosecond's advantage while I lowered by false colours.)

I know no more about the Sydney/Kormoran encounter than I've read in the books that have been written by people who, although they've done a lot more research than I have, it has to be said were also not there either. And of course I can't accuse the Kormoran crew of having indulged in anything illegal because, like everyone else, I don't know anything about the encounter for a fact except that one crew were all lost while most of the other crew were not.

However, few would disagree that Detmer's account of the battle is self-serving at best, and the fact that no survivors, only one dead, and almost no wreckage was ever ever found from the Sydney, while the vast majority of the Kormoran's crew stepped ashore in Perth with little more wrong with them than a deeper than usual suntan, leaves a question in the minds of many people as to what subterfuge Detmer, in a lightly armoured commerce raider, used to gain almost absolute ascendency over what was, in its day, a major and relatively well armoured warship.

...and the one dead man from the Sydney's crew who was found appeared to have died of a pistol shot to the head, (now amended to 'a shrapnel wound'), and the vast majority of the holes in that one Carley float look uniform, a lot more like small calibre machine gun bullet holes than shrapnel.

Many questions still to be answered, in my opinion.

[The Wawa Zone]

Wiley, the "pistol bullet" in the Christmas Island body was found to be steel shrapnel with the metallurgic characteristics of German WW2 era artillery shells, and the (x-ray and other) examinations of the Carley float in the AWM found that the damage was caused also by the nearby detonation of artillery shells (no fragments found) while the float was in a horizontal position.
I don't have the references for these quotations, however a Google search should verify these and provide the references.

Why no survivors ? The video footage of Sydney will probably show massive destruction of the superstructure area, including areas containing lifeboats and floatation gear. Also, if no one had given an order to abandon ship, the crew would remain at their stations – their ship was still afloat and making way when they disengaged from the battle.

A lot seems to have been made of the German’s “lying”, and no doubt when asked at the time “Did you open fire while flying a flag other than the German Naval ensign ?”, the answer would have been no.
This would not indicate that everything every German said was a lie made for the purposes of concealing some illegal act. The battle site position given by the Kormoran’s Navigator and radio operators to the RAN interrogators was correct to within 3Nm, and the Captain’s position was 25Nm to the south of the actual site (possibly the noon sun sight position made five hours before the battle), but well within any aircraft search area.
The one week delay, in effect a controlled release of information, in passing this to the RAN is quite understandable; as prisoners they would not release information unless they needed to, or have understood that the information had no value (having been informed that Sydney could not be found within the search area and was likely to have sunk).

This delay in passing information, plus the atmosphere of subterfuge created by the suspicion of them opening fire under a Dutch or surrender flag, was probably sufficient to degrade the degree of reliability placed on their information, the only original witness information available, and thus delayed an (expensive) underwater search by decades.
The only scientific analysis (other than DR plotting of wreckage and lifeboat movement by a number of highly qualified RAN Navs) of the available information was that done on the Kormoran’s survivor’s statements by the two psychologists from WA Uni since the mid-1990’s, who determined that the statements were correct, and recommended a search at the position where the wrecks where subsequently found. This scientific basis may have prompted the Fed government to finally fund a search, which was successful.

Did the Kormoran open fire without flying a German Naval ensign and thus be in breach of a law under some legal system ? Hoisting this flag and surviving would rely on fire from their rapidly employable 20mm and 37mm AAA weapons being sufficient to degrade Sydney’s capability to return effective fire in the interval before Kormoran could decamouflage and fire it’s heavy weapons, including its torpedoes, both of which would take up to a minute, and that these heavy weapons would then actually destroy Sydney. That would be a big gamble based on small calibre weapons, that would offer Sydney the balance of luck, which as Wiley as correctly stated, would be a poor tactical decision on the part of Kormoran’s Captain Dettmers, whose first concerns would be his mission, his ship, and his crew.

As the Germans acknowledged that they fired two torpedoes from their concealed underwater tubes, does the question arise of timing of the flag hoisting and the torpedo firing ? My guess, for what it’s worth, is that Dettmers fired torpedoes under the wrong flag, deliberately stalled and fumbled for the minute or so the torpedo(s) were tracking, and only hoisted the German flag and opened fire with his 20mm/37mm AAA immediately the torpedo(s) struck Sydney, then later with his larger guns (6 x 155mm) when these were finally able to be de camouflaged and fired.

His lowest risk course of action would have been to hoist a white flag and state his ship’s identification. He chose not to, and may well have chosen the above course of action, which offered the next lowest level of risk as well as the benefit of a good chance of escape, dependant on his gunner’s marksmanship which he knew to be good.

Only from an examination of the law as it was at the time can one determine any legal culpability of the German skipper is this scenario. A variation – what if he hoisted the German flag five seconds before the estimated time of impact in this scenario ? Is he still in breach of a law ?

The only valid facts will come from the Kormoran survivors, as they are the only witnesses, although the tunnel vision associated with a rapidly unfolding combat environment may blur individual’s observations of who hoisted what flag when and who fired what. The finding of the wrecks may trigger a response from some of them who may wish to clear the air after 67 years. How they are approached will have a great bearing on what they subsequently do.

Most likely whatever happened was part of a counter-interception drill which began with Dettmers decision to fight, and there was no going back once Sydney’s skipper began to and continued to act in a predictable way. Whatever both Captains did at the time made good sense to them; the scene on Kormoran’s bridge would have been electric, and no one can really second guess today any decision made by Dettmers.

[lowerlobe]

justapplhere..I think you are showing just how low your IQ is by making your post a personal attack.....

I have never professed to be a naval or maritime expert and only gave a theory yet you find this nonsensical without any justification,evidence or theories of your own...

I finished my post with the phrase "Who Knows" so spare me your emotive and infantile diatribe...

Wiley...your right and that there are many questions to be answered and who knows if we will ever get them.

My suggestion that there was perhaps a sub from either Germany or Japan was possible even without any records being kept.Perhaps the Kormoran did fire it's torpedoes first before flying it's German colours.

If there was no other vessel involved why did the Sydney put itself in a position to allow this to happen?

Of course, the conspiracy theorists would say that records can be faked and the Japanese submarine was involved in something with the Kormoran so secret and politically explosive, it had to destroy Sydney in case it had been seen in company with the Kormoran. (But if Sydney's crew had even thought they'd glimpsed a submarine, you can guarantee the last thing they'd have been doing was hoving to close alongside the other ship - or anywhere in the area, for that matter.)

Perhaps if there was a sub it was due to pick something up from the Kormoran which was vital and they were worried that the Sydney would send a boarding party over and the game would be up.

The one point that everyone agrees with is that it is strange that first of all it happened and then that there was no wreckage or other bodies found....

As I said Who knows....

[MTOW]

Could the whole sorry mess be attributed to a new captain, feeling very much in the shadow of his very successful predecesser, who wanted to put his stamp on a very experienced crew by insisting things be done his way rather than the way his Number 1 and all the officers on the bridge thought it should be done?

Truly tragic if the explanation is as simple as that.

[roamingwolf]

MTOW,I reckon thats why most Australians look for another reason hoping that it wasn't a screw up.
The only guys that can tell us for sure are dead.
Whatever the reason they put their lives on the line for us and paid the ultimate price.
RIP

[Croozin]

After reading the book by the 'Voyager' XO that's referred to above, it's distressingly easy to believe that cockup may well win out over conspiracy.

But having said that, the same book gives a disturbing and really revealing illustration of the lengths the people at the top in the Navy will go to to cover up an error that might threaten their system.

That book should be required reading for every cadet at ADFA.

[PLovett]

Croozin

Have to agree with you. So much of Australian military history from both world wars and later has been a story of cockups over conspiracy.:ugh:

Last year I listened to an interview with David Salter. During the interview the memory of what he had seen and suffered came rushing back and the interview had to be halted while he composed himself again. This was over a collision that occurred in 1963 (?).:uhoh:

I stand by my earlier post. I suspect that the Sydney suffered huge damage in the first few minutes of the action including taking one or two torpedo strikes. That she was able to respond with the bridge and fire control disabled speaks volumes for the experience and training of her crew. That she was able to sink the Kormoran is incredible as the Kormoran was not an easy mark. She had similar armament, a well trained crew and at the range the action was fought she would have been a formidable opponent.:ooh:

The Kormoron survivors reported the Sydney as sailing slowly to the south east, presumably to try and reach Perth. The vessel was on fire and listing. She was not seen again.

If, as reported, the Sydney is missing approximately 25 metres of her bow, this presumably happened later, weakened by the battle damage, especially the torpedos, and in that event she would have sunk within seconds. A lot of her crew would still have been at action stations or damage control. Not a lot would have been on deck. There would have been little chance of getting out if the ship sunk suddenly.:sad:

[Horatio Leafblower]

I am looking forward to the ABC special on April 1.

My only concern is that the the greatest explosion of excitement mustered by the search crew was...

..."2 4 6 8!" :8

[parabellum]

As a lad I saw lots of pictures from Boys Own Annual etc that showed fierce naval battles with sailors on the deck.

It was some years later that I was told that when a major warship fired from her main turrets anyone on the deck anywhere near would have been either blown or sucked overboard. When a major ship is at battle stations most of the crew are below* and often in the most vulnerable compartments of the ship. *(Aircraft carriers excepted!).

[Wiley]

You're certainly right about the destructive power of the muzzle blast from big guns, parabellum. On most capital ships, if the ship's float plane was still on its catapault, it would be damaged (if not, for all intents and purposes, destroyed) if the main armament was fired.

The float plane would often as not be launched before the main turrents came into operation - after all, spotting fall of shot was one of the aircraft's major tasks after identifying the enemy aircraft.

Sydney was a little bit different in that it aircraft was midships and possibly far enough away from the forrard turrets to survive the muzzle blast when they were fired. (Perhaps someone more expert than I am on things naval/nautical could comment on that point.)

Sydney also had torpedo tubes, and the torpedo crews at their action stations certainly had to be on the exposed deck. Detmers' report mentions that his anti aircraft cannon and guns virtually wiped them (the torpedo crews) out as the two ships passed at close quarters.

Anyone who saw 'Saving Private Ryan' would have a layman's idea of what 20mm cannon can do to 'soft skinned targets' - i.e., men. Many of Kormoran's anti aircraft cannon were fast firing 37mm, more or less the equivalent of the Allies' 40mm Bofors, which would do immense damage at such close range.

It doesn't bear thinking about what it would have been like for anyoone unfortunate enough to be on Sydney's open deck or in any compartment not protected by at least a inch or two of armour plate.

The question that continues to plague me is: what in the hell happened to cause the captain - (however inexperienced) - of a major warship to put his ship in such a situation? Surely to God it wasn't just his perceived need to get things sorted and the ship identified before last light? A situation like that would have been covered many times in exercises since he'd been a Midshipman.

[ApocalypseThen]

Isn`t this supposed to be an aviation forum ?

[PLovett]

AT

Read the first post.:rolleyes:

[Gnadenburg]

Yes.Great thread with a seaplane theme.....

Don't be dismayed I'm enjoying the contributions.

[Milt]

Horatio

2,4,6,8 = 2,468m

I think I heard someone ask "What is the depth?" So maybe just a coincidence that it was 2,468 metres.

Whilst we aviators continue to measure altitude in feet, have mariners given up using fathoms, cables etc or are they stuck with whatever used to be on the old charts?

The RAAF ceased using Port and Starboard as fighter pilots were continually confused as to which way to instinctively turn tightly away from an incoming attack when a 'break port/starboard' was called..

[OhSpareMe]

Most charts are now produced with Metres for the soundings. Cables, Fathoms, (Leagues!) are still in general use. The more modern Echo Sounders can switch their readouts to either Metres or Imperial (feet, fathoms).

I have to disagree with you Wiley on your assessment of the seaplane being damaged from the main armanent. I have stood out in the open, and abaft of the forward 4.5 inch guns at my action station and only felt a slight pressure wave when they were fired. I doubt, therefore, having a slightly larger calibre of 6 inches would produce a signifcantly larger shock/pressure wave. In fact you would in more danger of being hit by the turret which often turned without warning. Hence the reason for the decks around the guns to be cleared of personnel when firing.

[Wiley]

Thanks for the correction, OSM. However, I read once that on the RN Battleships during WW2, quite major damage could be sustained to all sorts of loose equipment on the ship when a salvo was fired from the main guns.

I saw the 'New Jersey' let loose one day (with what I would assume was less than a full broadside). From 8,000' (and, I can assure you, to seawards of the ship!), it was VERY impressive. As my captain pointed out to me at the time, every shell that the NJ threw from its main armament weighed as much as a Volkswagon Beetle. (Edited to add, after seeing Milt's post above: "Milt, I do believe I was one of your bright eyed, bushy tailed Boggies at the time.")

Apologies for the thread drift, but I find myself waiting with some anticipation for the first pictures of both ships to be made public - and to give the thread (an admittedly tenuous) aviation spin, if any FO thinks he's hard done by with some crusty captain he has to endure for two, or maybe eight hours in an airliner, I urge him to get his hands on David Salter's book (mentioned above) about the life that he endured for months as XO on the Voyager.

[teresa green]

Tuesday night 2030 ABC. The HMAS SYDNEY. Should be worth watching (or taping)

[RodH]

The ABC TV documentry " The Hunt for HMAS Sydney " Is NOT going to be screened on the 1st. April.
As of today 31st March at 1415 AEDST it is 2030 on the 15th April .
It always was this date from what I could see .
When I did a google search the abbreviated answer stated that it was on Tues 1.....
I too thought it meant the 1st but when you open up the story it completes the sentence and shows it as Tues 15th .
The " 5 and th " do not show in the abbreviated google answer .
The ABC TV's web site confirms this .
I reckon it's going to be very interesting indeed .
Rod H

[teresa green]

Tidbinbilla thank you for letting this run, we will continue to mention the sea plane. Julia Gillard has now announced a inquiry into the sinking of the "Sydney" which is amazing 60 odd years later. the Navy was renowned for inquiries even into the sinking of a row boat, so very interesting times ahead for all you history and navy buffs out there of which I am one. I "run" and fish with a pack of retired blokes which include three QF skippers, two TAA Skippers, one Air Commodore, and (I am boasting here) one Rear Admiral. As fisherman we are basically useless, as drinkers we are experts, as historians we love a good augument so this is keeping us of the streets, away from the missus, and not boring the kids. :D

[Millski]

I agree with TG, I sail on port phillip, melbourne.
I have to chaps I know that were very lucky re this type of ship, one who got off Hmas Sydney at Perth for R&R ( it never came back) and has 3 sons and they sail out of the same club.
The other chap was on The Hmas Hobart when it was topedoed. Albeit they are a tad old they still get on a yacht and still like the taste of a good whisky.I will have a chat to one of them today.
Thanks for keeping the thread.
Rgds to all, M

[PLovett]

Of the three sister ships only the Hobart lasted until she was scrapped.

The Sydney we all now know about and the Perth was sunk in a night action in the Sunda Strait along I think with the USS Huston. They had engaged a much larger force of Japanese ships and did considerable damage to them before being sunk.

As a youngster I can recall the Hobart on what was possibly her last visit to her port of name before being sold to the Japanese for scrap. The 8" gun cruisers were a very impressive ship for their time.

[lowerlobe]

What did anyone think of the ABC doco on the Sydney and the search..?

[layman]

As entertainment probably not all that exciting. As a piece of 'historical research' in action - excellent stuff. I intend to watch it again ... and to spend some time looking at the photos (although I usually need them to be interpreted for me).

Some quite incredible research before they even left port (e.g. the time / perseverance it must have taken David Mearns to go through Detmer's account of the battle by following the pencil hole code in that book ...).

And from what was said in the documentary, the seabed evidence seems to support the German account of the battle - although some conspiracy theorists probably won't agree.

As has been mentioned previously, the bow coming off the Sydney probably meant that it sank quickly (similar to the Hood?) resulting in (almost) no-one being able to get off - certainly none successfully.

And now we know why Mearns was so excited about "2 4 6 8" - it meant the depth was in range of their cameras!

If people haven't seen it, there is a 'mass' of information on the ABC site about the search: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/hmassydney/

layman

[teresa green]

I enjoyed it very much. Noticed the sea plane took the first hit, no doubt to stop her launching and reporting the battle. Interesting that her bow broke off by the force of the water which would have made her sink like a stone, which probably was one reason not to many got off and the life boats were still present. Her gunners most have fought like men possessed as the ship burned and started to sink around them, they should be nominated for a post honour award, for it was they that caused the sinking of the Kormoran. Could I be so brave?:D

[roamingwolf]

I go along with you teresa green and think the same especially after the bridge was taken out and the Sydney hit by the torpedo.The aft gunners still gave the Kormoran grief as their ship was hit time and again and mortally wounded.

It reminds me of the quote from Moby Dick which if you think about is very apt.
Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee.
still there are a lot of questions that we probably never know the answer.

[Doubly Ugly]

I've enjoyed reading the threads here. Like many I've been surprised at the amount of damage meted out over a kilometre. No-one else has posted about a mention I heard on the radio of another merchant raider which was sunk by an RAN (RN?) cruiser before the Sydney's engagement with the Kormaran. That captain had sat far outside the range of the commerce raider and plugged away at it with a lot of expended ordnance before it sank. He had been reprimanded for being too timid. That could explain a desire to get up close and settle the issue before night fell.

[lowerlobe]

Whatever the reason the CO had for being that close we will never know.

I still find it strange though that no wreckage or bodies were picked up or found.You would think that something would have floated when the Sydney went down.....

Did Capt Detmers give the wrong co-ordinates of the battle and if so why?