Hmas Sydney

[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?

[Agony]

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

[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.

[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....