|
Post by PeterB on Sept 19, 2005 2:10:23 GMT -4
It was November 1941, and somewhere in the Indian Ocean, an Australian light cruiser approached a neutral merchant ship. Suddenly, panels on the sides of the merchant ship dropped, a torpedo or two were launched, guns fired and a German ensign run up the mast. Although surprised and heavily damaged by the torpedoes and gunfire, the Australians fought back valiantly. The German raider Kormoran eventually sank, and some of her crew were rescued. But of HMAS Sydney, nothing was ever found except a lone Carley float with a body which washed up at Christmas Island. The Germans said that the last they saw of Sydney was it drifting away, heavily on fire.
The loss of HMAS Sydney and all her crew was Australia’s worst naval loss in World War 2, and a blow to national morale, as the ship had previously fought against two Italian light cruisers and sunk one of them, the Bartolomeo Colleoni. Even the location of the wreck of the Sydney is unknown.
Now I’m sure the cockles of conspiracy theorists’ hearts will be warmed by the knowledge that even for the loss of a single warship in the navy of a minor Allied nation there’s a conspiracy theory: the Sydney was sunk about a month before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Yet the question remains, did a Japanese submarine contribute to the sinking of the Sydney?
It seems unlikely to me. From what I’ve read (not a great deal), the Sydney had a new captain who was somewhat less cautious than he should have been. Kormoran survivors said that the ship’s guns were trained fore and aft as it approached, and it got a lot closer to the Kormoran than it needed to in order to verify the ship’s identity. In other words, the actions of the captain of the Sydney simply made the Kormoran’s first strike all the more effective.
But now the Australian government has committed money to a search for the wreck, a search which will hopefully finally answer the question of what happened that day.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 19, 2005 2:54:29 GMT -4
Hi peter. I've not heard this story before, and it sounds interesting to me. What is the case being made by some that it was actually a Japanese sub that sank the Sydney? From what you've posted, it doesn't seem to be a very strong case.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 19, 2005 3:12:37 GMT -4
I don't remember many details, but I think what happened was that one of the German sailors drew some pictures of the battle between the Sydney and the Kormoran. IIRC someone supposedly saw some shorthand symbols in the pictures, which spelt out a message. I don't know what German shorthand looks like, but if it's anything like Pitman's curly lines you'll see shorthand in a drawing of an explosion.
As far as I'm concerned, the presence of a Japanese submarine in the Indian Ocean in November 1941 is plausible. Likewise for contact between a German ship and a Japanese submarine. What's lacking is some stronger evidence. I think an investigation of the wreck of the Sydney would explain a lot.
Of course, the other Royal Australian Navy controversy from World War 2 is the sinking of HMAS Canberra at the Battle of Savo Island. It was one of several Allied cruisers sunk in a surprise night attack by Japanese forces, but the question is who sank it. There's some fairly convincing evidence that the torpedoes which struck the Canberra were the only torpedoes in the US Navy in 1942 which actually exploded, as opposed to Japanese Long Lance torpedoes.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Oct 1, 2005 2:37:47 GMT -4
There's some fairly convincing evidence that the torpedoes which struck the Canberra were the only torpedoes in the US Navy in 1942 which actually exploded, as opposed to Japanese Long Lance torpedoes. What? Mk 14s that actually worked in '42? I'd like to see that evidence! ;D ( I'm being sarcastic, I know they occasionally did go boom more or less as designed)
|
|
golfhobo
Venus
DAMN! That woulda gone in the hole IF....
Posts: 86
|
Post by golfhobo on Oct 1, 2005 8:06:49 GMT -4
What's lacking is some stronger evidence. I think an investigation of the wreck of the Sydney would explain a lot.
Are you saying that, after all these years, one could tell the difference between a German torpedo strike and a Japanese one?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 1, 2005 11:40:55 GMT -4
I think you'd have trouble telling what nationality of torpedo sank even a recent wreck: being designed to do the same job, all torpedoes have similar warheads and effects on the target...
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Oct 3, 2005 20:39:27 GMT -4
Golfhobo asked:
Well, for example, if there was torpedo damage on both sides of the Sydney, that would be fairly convincing evidence. I think it's fairly unlikely that the Kormoran could have launched two torpedo attacks at times so far separated that the opposite side of the Sydney was presented as a target.
I'm not saying that it'll definitely be possible to work out whether a Japanese submarine was involved in the attack. What I am saying is that I'm sure a scientific examination of the wreck of the Sydney will reveal a lot about the battle that is currently unknown.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Oct 3, 2005 20:40:55 GMT -4
Bazbear said:
Good point! ;-) But seriously, my understanding is that the Canberra was struck by torpedoes on the side of the ship which was facing away from the Japanese force.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Oct 4, 2005 1:09:25 GMT -4
Unless the environment is particularly harsh (for example, if the water is very cold), then it is very rare for a warship in combat to lose all hands, unless there is a magazine explosion. The Kormoran did not report one, but an analysis of the wreck would certainly show if such a disaster had occurred.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 4, 2005 9:00:19 GMT -4
What's lacking is some stronger evidence. I think an investigation of the wreck of the Sydney would explain a lot. Are you saying that, after all these years, one could tell the difference between a German torpedo strike and a Japanese one? I wonder if after all this time one could tell the difference between the remains of Japanese and German torpedoes? Also it might be possible to tell the difference between a ship launched torpedo strike and a sub launched torpedo strike, would the latter be lower?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 4, 2005 9:14:45 GMT -4
Also it might be possible to tell the difference between a ship launched torpedo strike and a sub launched torpedo strike, would the latter be lower? Unlikely: once the torpedo has been running long enough to reach its stable operating depth there wouldn't be any way to trace back to its launch depth from the impact point.
|
|
golfhobo
Venus
DAMN! That woulda gone in the hole IF....
Posts: 86
|
Post by golfhobo on Oct 7, 2005 9:29:24 GMT -4
Okay, I see your point. I hadn't considered that possibility. Now, don't let us get confused between the Sydney and the Canberra. Do you have any evidence or reason to assume that the SYDNEY had been attacked from the opposite side, as the Canberra was? Of course, your point might well be assumed to be that an investigation might provide this piece of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 17, 2008 11:13:20 GMT -4
Well, here's a bit of thread necromancy for you.
The wrecks of the Kormoran and the Sydney have just been found in the last couple of days. The Sydney is apparently missing its bow, suggesting that it was blown off by a magazine explosion, quite possibly one reported by Kormoran survivors (sorry Count Zero, it appears you were wrong). Some more pictures in coming weeks may shed further light on what happened.
Anyway, I still do a regular monthly talk on radio on matters historical, and this week I'll be talking about the story of the Sydney and the Kormoran. Here's the text I've prepared...
= = = =
One of Australia’s great maritime mysteries is a major step closer to resolution, with the discovery this week of the remains of the warship HMAS Sydney and the German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran.
The ships sank each other in battle on 19 November 1941. A major part of the mystery is that none of Sydney’s crew survived, causing uncertainty both about how Sydney was so severely damaged by Kormoran, and why it sank.
HMAS Sydney was a light cruiser of the British modified Leander class, joining the navy in 1935. Light cruisers were relatively small warships of the time, weighing about 9000 tons (the largest battleships of World War Two weighed more than 60,000 tons), and with a crew of about 650. At the start of World War Two, the RAN had three such ships, Sydney, Perth and Hobart. Their duties included patrolling, scouting, shore bombardment and escorting convoys.
During 1940 and early 1941, Sydney was stationed in the Mediterranean Sea, working with Royal Navy ships to maintain supply lines between the British bases of Gibraltar in the west, Alexandria in the east, and Malta in the centre, and to threaten the supply line between Italy and its army in North Africa, Italy being an ally of Germany in World War Two.
Sydney is famous for her victory in the battle of Cape Spada, near Crete, in July 1940, in which she took on two Italian light cruisers, each of them as well armed as herself. British destroyers, smaller warships than light cruisers, encountered the Italian ships, and drew them towards Sydney. Sydney’s guns damaged the engines of one of the light cruisers, the Bartolomeo Colleoni, and British destroyers sank her. The other Italian light cruiser withdrew.
In January 1941, the ship returned to Australia, and a new captain was appointed. She was given a new task of patrolling the Indian Ocean and escorting convoys. In mid November 1941, while returning to Fremantle from the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia), she encountered Kormoran.
Kormoran was a former German merchant ship, the Steiermark, converted to what was known as an Armed Merchant Cruiser or Auxiliary Cruiser. From the outside she looked like an ordinary tramp steamer (in Kormoran’s case, she was disguised as a Dutch merchant ship, the Straat Malakka), but she had false sides which could drop down to reveal guns and torpedo tubes. In fact, her armament was almost as powerful as that of Sydney, and at 8700 tons she was nearly as large, although as a merchant ship she didn’t have the same protection as the warship. She also carried mines. Kormoran’s tactics relied on deception. By pretending to be a neutral Dutch merchant ship, she would get as close as possible to Allied merchant ships, then reveal her guns. The target usually surrendered without a fight. Kormoran’s captain, Commander Theodor Detmers, gained a reputation for treating the crews of Allied ships well while they were on board, with specific accommodation for prisoners built into the ship.
The Germans committed several of these ships during World War Two. Their purpose was to disrupt merchant shipping in remote parts of the world. This was a particular problem for Britain, which lacked the warships to provide much protection outside the major shipping lanes. Commerce raiding also forced the British to commit warships to hunt the culprits down, warships which were often needed elsewhere. Actually sinking merchant ships was a bonus for Kormoran, but not strictly necessary.
Kormoran left Germany in December 1940, and spent four months in the South Atlantic, during which time she sank seven merchant ships and sent one back to German-occupied France as a prize. She then shifted to the Indian Ocean, where in seven months she sank only three merchant ships. Commander Detmers was planning a move to the Pacific Ocean when she ran into Sydney.
It should be pointed out that the deceptions used by Kormoran were quite acceptable under the laws of war. All she had to do was identify herself as a German warship before the crew fired their weapons.
According to Kormoran survivors, Detmers was able to draw within a kilometre of Sydney, a very short range for its guns and torpedoes, and one at which Sydney’s armour would provide little protection against Kormoran’s guns. Kormoran survivors also say that Sydney was moving slowly, and its gun turrets were pointing fore and aft, rather than at Kormoran, suggesting that Sydney’s captain, Joseph Burnett, was not expecting trouble.
Commander Detmers then took his chance, ordering his ship to open fire. The first salvo of shells caused severe damage to Sydney’s bridge, from where the ship was controlled, and set its floatplane on fire. Kormoran also fired torpedoes, and one of them struck Sydney near the forward gun turrets.
Despite being surprised, Sydney’s crew fought back, and in the next hour or so were able to cause so much damage to Kormoran that it had to be abandoned and scuttled. The last Kormoran’s crew saw of Sydney was late in the day; it was on fire and heading south. During the night they then saw major explosions somewhere over the horizon, and concluded that Sydney had been destroyed.
Nothing of Sydney survived except an empty Carley float – a simple rescue raft of which ships carried dozens, and each capable of holding several men – which washed up on the West Australian coast. In January 1942, another Carley float washed up at Christmas Island, over a thousand kilometres to the north-west. In the float was a body which was buried on the island. He has so far not been identified, although DNA tests have been recently carried out with relatives of some Sydney crew.
What happened to Sydney? The first reports say that the wreck is missing its bow. This suggests that the explosion Kormoran’s crew saw was the bow being blown off, presumably by a fire detonating shells stored in a magazine under the forward gun turrets. Such explosions have the capacity to blow ships apart, such as happened to the British battlecruiser Hood six months earlier against the German battleship Bismarck. But the fact that most of Sydney’s hull is intact suggests the explosion was considerably less massive. Even so, such an explosion would have doomed the ship, and it’s likely Sydney’s remains would have sunk within half an hour, and possibly much faster.
So why did none of Sydney’s crew survive? The first clue lies in the fact that one of Kormoran’s early hits caused severe damage to Sydney’s bridge. This suggests many of Sydney’s senior officers were killed or injured, leaving the remainder of the crew leaderless, and without the co-ordination to fight either Kormoran or the fires on board Sydney. Many more of the crew would have been killed or severely injured in the explosion seen by Kormoran’s survivors. Where warships have exploded in battle, there have rarely been more than a few survivors, and usually only when they were picked up within half an hour. Given that Sydney was alone, and that the sea conditions were rough enough to overturn one of Kormoran’s life boats, it’s not surprising that none survived long enough to be picked up by the merchant ships which rescued Kormoran’s crew.
But there are others who see sinister acts behind the Sydney’s loss. One such is former RAN Lieutenant Commander Ean McDonald, who was interviewed by the ABC’s Tony Eastley on Monday’s AM radio program. McDonald believes some people knew Sydney’s location and fate, but hid it for unexplained reasons. He bases this belief on his certainty that Sydney must have sent out a radio signal, even though no signals were reported. However, there appear to be two straightforward and related explanations for no radio signal being sent. Firstly, early damage to Sydney could easily have brought down her aerial, preventing her from sending signals until a replacement aerial could be jury-rigged. Secondly, once the battle had begun, saving Sydney would have been the priority, even at the expense of sending a message. Once the ship was secure, a message could be sent.
Another controversy is a claim which has appeared several times over the years that a Japanese submarine was also involved in the action, and that it was the submarine which was responsible for sinking Sydney. At first glance the story is plausible, as the Japanese submarines certainly reached distant locations during the Pacific War. But it seems unlikely in the context of the war at the time. The battle between Sydney and Kormoran took place about three weeks before the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor, the Philippines and Malaya brought America and Britain to war with Japan. At the time, the last thing the Japanese Navy would have wanted to do was to go to war prematurely over a single light cruiser. The Japanese could only have got away with attacking the Sydney if they could have ensured no one would survive their attack, and this was something they’d have had little control over. The Japanese had little to gain by attacking Sydney and much to risk. The other major factor counting against Japanese involvement is that it simply wasn’t necessary. The damage inflicted by Kormoran was quite capable of sinking Sydney.
Instead, it seems that Sydney was a victim of the cruel chances of war. At least with its discovery, relatives of the lost sailors will have the chance to find out exactly what happened to their kin, and a mysterious chapter in Australia’s nautical history can be closed.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 17, 2008 14:54:08 GMT -4
I have to say--I wasn't here when this thread was new, and I'm delighted by the idea of Turbonium not finding the evidence presented for something enough to make a strong case.
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Mar 17, 2008 17:52:08 GMT -4
Several RN cruisers were badly damaged by German commerce raiders. In all cases it was down to a reluctance to fire on an unidentified ship and carelesness in their approach.
A good description of the actions and the destruction of the German 'Q' Ships (Including the Sydney) is in CRUISERS IN ACTION. Pedter C Smith H/B 1981 (ISBN 0 7183 0218 4)
|
|