Hmas Sydney
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Truly tragic if the explanation is as simple as that.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mascot
Age: 57
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Limbo
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 (?).
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.
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.
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.
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 (?).
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.
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.
Last edited by PLovett; 29th Mar 2008 at 11:21. Reason: To clarify a badly written paragraph.
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!"
My only concern is that the the greatest explosion of excitement mustered by the search crew was...
..."2 4 6 8!"
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!).
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!).
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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..
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Wiley; 30th Mar 2008 at 09:37.
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: W'town vic Australia
Age: 68
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
a sad reminder ...
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
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