HMAS Sydney II D48 (1934-1941)

[The Sailor]

When the inexperienced new captain of HMAS Sydney placed her alongside the Kormoran that day in 1941, it is my opinion that it was the greatest public service blunder in Australian history.

During the last few years it has seen search after search carried out to find her last resting place. So called naval buffs claim that she was torpedoed by a Japanese submarine that day which was 17 days before Pearl Harbor.
They want to find the wreck to see they say. I'd say if they ever do find it, it will have torpedo damage because the Kormoran had underwater torpedo tubes and they were fired.

Last year I had cause to visit Carnarvon in Western Australia. This town is the closest inhabited area to where the naval battle took place. From Carnarvon that day they could hear it.
When I went to the local museum, I got a big surprise. There was one of the lifeboats from the Kormoran in the railway museum at the beginning of the jetty.
This lifeboat of Kormoran's survivors appeared at the jetty after the battle on the morning of 20 Nov 1941.
They were placed under arrest and sent south to Perth.

I enclose the photos I took.
My opinion is that this valuable historical object should not be in that unattended museum in Carnarvon, it should be in the Frematle Maritime Museum. Even the jetty caught alight up there a few months ago.

[herakles]

True Sailor. The loss of Sydney was our biggest naval loss of the war and the mystery that surrounds it still causes much discussion.

[The Sailor]

Marrinup POW Camp Site - Dwellingup

Recently I drove down to see the site of the prison camp where the Germans from the Kormoran were taken.
A lot of it is still there including the old parade ground with the name of the camp spelled out in old white painted rocks.
Hut foundations and water tanks etc.
If one looks at the thick scrub there, you can see why there weren't any escapes.
Number sixteen prisoner of war compound and garrison, was built at Marrinup, 83km south of Perth, it was the only Prisoner of War Camp in Western Australia and accommodated 1,200.

Herk, I'd be interested to know if as an Australian, did you know that lifeboat was in Carnarvon?

And with that, we are off to church. It is Sunday morning here for C of Es.

[herakles]

I didn't know Sailor. And I agree, it would be better placed in Freo.

It's a great shame that so little of Sydney was ever found afterwards too. It might have helped understand what happened.

[The Sailor]

Frankly I'm amazed that such a valuable artifact is left up there in that bloody railway shed. I'm going to write some letters about it.
If the State government can't rip it off the Carvarvon Town Council then maybe Canberra War Museum can.

[Alan B]

Sydney getting a cheer from the Eagle after her action with the Itilian ship.

[Commodore Armiger]

There are two good sites about the WWII Sydney and its tragic loss:

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/sydney2.html

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/sydney2a.html

as well as a site dedicated to the search:

http://www.findingsydney.com/

Today's BBC News site says that an Australian search team has located the site of the wreck of DKM Kormoran, the German merchant cruiser that sank Sydney (and was itself sunk in the same action).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7299425.stm

So perhaps, nearly 70 years on, the RAN and the descendants of the 645 seamen who died, will soon be able to honour their dead at the very spot where the action took place.

[astraltrader]

For further news about locating the wreck of the Kormoran including some interesting sonar images please visit - http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7166&posted=1#post7166

[DJBlackburn]

26° 14’ 37” S 111° 13’ 03” E

Approximately 10 nautical miles from the scene of battle and 12 nm from the wreck of Kormoran.

Initial reports indicate she is upright, resting on a smooth, flat expanse of seabed, with a section of her bow broken off. It is believed this bow section was the event that finally caused her to sink after she turned course away from the German raider, terribly damaged and afire.

ROV operations are next and, if released, should provide some spectacular images of the ship, itself.

What a find, what an effort, and what a team BWR and David Mearns has, doing the job in an appreciably shorter time than planned for!

[Kevin Denlay]

What a find, what an effort, and what a team BWR and David Mearns has, doing the job in an appreciably shorter time than planned for!

I'll second that motion with gusto, except I'll add an S to the word 'find(s)'

K

[Maritime Michael Ian]

Really Great news.... I had an e-mail from a former colleague of mine in Melbourne today, telling me of the double find. Will ultimately help the families finally come to terms with her loss. Amazing what modern ROV technology now can do!.... first Titanic, then HMS Hood, Hitler's Reichsmarine Bismark, now HMAS Sydney!

Ian
OS RANR

[herakles]

The man who led the discovery is the same man who found the Bismark.

[Kevin Denlay]

Amazing what modern ROV technology now can do!....

Hi Ian,

Actually, as far as I am aware, up to this point it has been side scan sonar technology they have used exclusively. ROV dives are still to come. And they are two VERY different systems/technologies.

The man who led the discovery is the same man who found the Bismark.

Hi Herakles,

This not technically correct and without meaning to be rude, aggravates me somewhat when I see it written. Make no mistake, Robert Ballard DISCOVERED Bismarck, Mearns, all credit to him, just refound her some years later (with no help/input from Ballard). So yes he found Bismark but...................

Mearns, as much as I admire him, is kinda like the 2nd man on the moon in my opinion as regards Bismark. A great accomplishment, but the the credits should got to Ballard and Ballard alone for discovering/finding Bismark.

Sorry all, but it gets my goat to see credit not been given in the correct quarter, and it just happens all to often re Bismark, even if unintentionally. And no offence meant Herakles.

K

[herakles]

An important correction Kev. I was quoting from a Melbourne newspaper.

Credit where credit's due!

For all that, I wouldn't have minded being the second man on the Moon.

[Kevin Denlay]

Credit where credit's due!

For all that, I wouldn't have minded being the second man on the Moon.

I hear you, but.................you'd be surprised when asked how many people actually remember who that was. (Hence my use of that 'term' in places.)

Am also surprised that in all the years I have never once heard Mearns give Ballard the credit when people refer to him (Mearns) as the person who 'discovered' Bismark. Given he has so many other worthwhile 'finds' to his credit, and two more now to add, I find that odd. (However i do believe their is no love lost between the to gents.)

K

[Kevin Denlay]

I can't remember whether I have put this one up before or not!.

Hi Bob,

Assume you realise that your's is a different Sydney to the one they just found (below)?

K

[Kevin Denlay]

Folks, attached for those not so familiar with the beautiful land down under and just where they located the two ships.

Please note 'map' from newspaper has some(?) inaccuracies it seems. (But blame me for any inaccuracy in other two.)

So not vouching for newspaper 'maps' accuracy by any means, it's just to give some folks a general idea of what, seemingly, has been going on, and what they 'think' happened.

The caveat is that, basically, anything the media touches should be treated with a grain of salt!

PS. My understanding from what I have read elsewhere is that Kormoran wreck is northish of battle area (where the very big piece of wreckage 33m x 19 x 13 was found) and Sydney wreck southeast, whereas the way this map portrays it, the battle area is to the north of both wrecks more or less. Somehow I 'think' the first version is correct but......................................what do I know.

[herakles]

I've seen that 2nd photo before but just where? I'll see if I can find it.

In the meantime, here is a link to the Australian War Memorial and their description of the fight between Sydney and the Kormoran:

http://www.awm.gov.au/Encyclopedia/hmas_sydney/action.htm

And here is a link to another site. There's some good photos here and a description of the memorial at Geraldton:

http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/waratsea/HMASsydney.html

[herakles]

I've seen that 2nd photo before but just where? I'll see if I can find it.

In the meantime, here is a link to the Australian War Memorial and their description of the fight between Sydney and the Kormoran:

http://www.awm.gov.au/Encyclopedia/hmas_sydney/action.htm

And here's another official link including a good description of the memorial at Geraldton:

http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/waratsea/HMASsydney.html

This is a video tribute, albeit with annoying music (some good photos):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgtMaZVDcL4

This link is to the Roll of Honour of the ship's crew: http://findingsydney.com/roll.asp

This link is a story of the Sydney's school teacher:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/photo-revives-memories-of-lost-schoolmaster/2008/03/18/1205602384157.html

[herakles]

Here's another link given several stories of interest:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/indepth/section/0,,5016633,00.html

[herakles]

HMAS Sydney search vessel SV Geosounder has been delayed in Geraldton for a night as its crew perform extensive tests on its underwater video equipment.
The ship, which was due to leave Geraldton yesterday, is expected to set a course for the wrecks of HMAS Sydney and HSK Kormoran before lunch today.

Finding Sydney Foundation director Patrick Flynn said last night: "We are still conducting wet testing of the remotely operated vehicle this evening.
"As you can imagine, with a piece of machinery which operates at depths of up to 3000 metres, it is under tremendous pressure so we want to make sure it is functioning perfectly.

"The team is working around the clock and it's likely she (the Geosounder) will be off late tomorrow morning."

The Geosounder and its 33 crew are expected to be at sea for two weeks as they film the wreckage of Sydney, Kormoran and the site of the battle between the two ships on November 19, 1941.

The crew will use remote-controlled video technology imported from Norway to inspect the wrecks and provide families and relatives of the 645 men lost when the Sydney went down with a visual memorial to their loved ones.

The foundation has promised not to release photos or footage of sailors' remains.

[herakles]

Some more information:

The Australian Govt. has announced a full scale inquiry into the battle between Sydney and Kormoran and the eventual fate of both ships.

And this is a video of the discovery:

http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/media/s2192666.htm

[herakles]

The first photos have been released.

The first seven images, now available on the Finding Sydney Foundation website, were taken yesterday by a special remotely-operated submersible deployed from the survey vessel Geosounder.

One shows a gun turret with a shell hole clearly visible between the two guns.

Another shows a gun turret with wreckage strewn over it, while a further photo shows a section of the deck with teak decking remarkably intact.

Mr Mearns says the wreck is sitting upright on the sea floor with its guns pointing to port.

The Sydney appeared to have hit the seabed stern first, he said.

"Both funnels and masts were gone and all the lifeboats were missing from their cradle stands but all four turrets were retained in place,'' he said.

"As per the German accounts, the bridge and superstructure of Sydney withstood the worst damage as the heavy guns of Kormoran clearly had a devastating effect.

"The bow was gone just forward of A turret in keeping with the torpedo strike in this location.''

Naval historian John Perryman, also an observer, says several large shell holes can be seen in the side of the ship above the waterline.

The bridge and superstructure had suffered severe punishment, he said.

"Both the director-control tower and high-angle control station behind the compass platform were gone and the bridge was completely devastated.''

Nothing remained of the Sydney forward of the first gun turret.

"The damage in this area showed signs of what may have been a violent explosion as the deck had been rent upwards and folded up over the gun barrels of A turret,'' Mr Perryman said.

"The ship's side of Sydney in this area had been peeled back too and this could have been the result of the Kormoran's torpedo hit on her.''

[herakles]

This article: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/04/04/1207249460459.html

discusses the strange fact that the photos are showing an absence of life boats. This raises several issues about the fate of the crew. If we believe the Kormoran survivors who stated that Sydney took 6 hours to sink, it seems odd that no-one survived.

I'm not posting any more updates here. It's clear that no-one is interested in them. Judging by the complete absence of any comments.

[Maritime Michael Ian]

I think Herakles that unless one has lived in Oz and had some knowledge of the RAN, and hence "Sydney" it's possible that one Empire/Commonwealth ship is very much like another for people over here. I of course became interested because of my Oz residency at onetime also my RANR connection. The first photos are interesting, and it would be interesting to see the rest of her, as she sits. What you say about the absence of lifeboats....as a guess, would it not have been conceivable that with the amount of punishment that she appeared to have taken that the boats may/would have been blown away?? What d'you reckon??

Ian

[herakles]

Just me having a rant Ian! Your point's taken.

It seems the decks were sprayed by the Kormoran. The bridge went early in the fight meaning that many officers were the first to die. Perhaps the boats were raked as well. But they're made well and there will still be bits of them to be photographed. Just as the teak deck is still in good condition.

More photos are needed now.

[Maritime Michael Ian]

I agree to a large extent, Herakles, though considering the sheer hell of lord knows how many machine gun bullets raking the superstructure per minute, if not per second, even stoutly built wooden boats would, I should have thought, virtually resulted in being turned to matchwood!

I only hope that, with the site being declared a War Grave, that there aren't those who, ' for a quick buck' , want to set up an organisation to collect souvenirs!!! I say that because of what happened to Titanic, which most certainly was/is a maritime grave, but we know what happens when the thought of monetary return rears its ugly head(s)!! Titanic lies in International waters but that didn't stop an American organisation being set up and from plundering her, even at 2.5 miles deep!

May they rest in peace.

Ian

[herakles]

The cameras are answering some questions and posing more.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/04/07/1207420301745.html?from=top5

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/sydney-lifeboat-mystery-solved/2008/04/07/1207420303613.html

[hydroggy]

With the discovery of the wreck the press are having a field day with Sydney's "Lifeboats" - I cringe at the expression :mad:

More evidence on these boats will undoubtedly surface and there will be much speculation of the lack of survivors. It may be worthwhile to have any "official" details of what boats and rafts etc. were carried at the time.

According to http://http://www.awm.gov.au/Encyclopedia/hmas_sydney/carleyfloat.pdf she would appear to have carried 2 x No18 and 5 x No20 Carley Floats for a total carrying capacity of 234 men.

I have been unable to get other than my own best guess as to ship's boats - probably 2 x 32' Cutter [1 motor?], 2 x 27' whalers and 1 x Motor Boat.

Can anyone provide more details please?

FWIW the following is from AMS (1951) Vol II Chap.VIII page 353:-

In the Royal Navy the ship's boats are not regarded as life-boats because they are not constructed as such and because it may not be possible to launch them in emergency ; sufficient buoyant apparatus is therefore provided for the full complement of each ship.

I wonder what the previous edition said on the matter.

[herakles]

First of all Mike, welcome! It's great having another Aussie here.

The matter of the boats is certainly generating much speculation.

I posted a thread on this the other day:

http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1451

There was a report today (8 April) that said the ship would have stayed afloat for some hours as the water-tight compartments would have kept her afloat. Thus giving survivors time to plan an escape. This of course will fuel even more speculation.

I do so hope that time will tell.

Now photos of the Kormoran have been released. They show her broken in two, supporting the reports that she was scuttled.

[Maritime Michael Ian]

Well these latest photos seem to answer my query in the other thread started by Herakles, that I posted to yesterday morning (my time) don't they! Must have been one hell of a battle. Why, I wonder, were the boats not floating around for the crew, or at least most of them, not to be able to get aboard them... assuming that there were people to get to them.

Ian

[hucks216]

Hi,
Not sure if this has been posted before but I have just found this website with various galleries showing the two wrecks.

http://www.findingsydney.com/gallery.asp

[herakles]

Several of these photos have been placed here but this is a good site in that everything is here.

[hydroggy]

Thanks Hucks. The plans of the ship answer my question regarding boats - at least "as fitted". It looks like the two 32' cutters were considered as "lifeboats" although the possibility of launching/lowering same with a damaged/listing ship is problematic.

[Stan.J]

I have been reading this months edition of Warships (international fleet review)www.warshipsifr.com
A very interesting article about the discovery of the wreck and further information about the possible battle that led to the sinking..It still leaves a number of questions unanswered however, in particular why no survivors?
There is a rather poignant photo on the back page of the issue, of the Sydneys crew marching through Sydney`s Martin Place after she returned from the cruisers successful Med.victories.

I will endeavor to copy and post it.The photo is from the Royal Australian Historic Archives.

[Stan.J]

Hope this is O.K.

[herakles]

A nice picture Stan.

I have posted a picture of the crew on-board ship elsewhere here.


We have been discussing the matter of the life rafts here also.

there are many unanswered questions.

The discovery ship has now returned to port.

There is to be a memorial service quite soon at the site for relatives.

[herakles]

HMAS Sydney dead remembered



Family members travelled from all over Australia for a national memorial service in Sydney this morning to remember the men lost in the sunken wreck of HMAS Sydney 66 years ago.


The extent of the horror visited on the 645 men aboard HMAS Sydney was recently revealed in photographs of the recovered wreck off the West Australian coast.


Many family members adorned in war medals laid wreaths and flowers to commemorate their loved ones at the service, held at St Andrew's Cathedral.


One bouquet read "at last the family and national mystery will be laid to rest".


Tearful relatives recognised the men's sacrifice with a guard of honour, heartfelt hymns, prayers and other official ceremonies.
Wreaths were laid by NSW governor Marie Bashir, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Chief of Navy Russ Shalders and others.


The congregation was addressed by the Reverend Philip Jensen who paid tribute to the "men who laid down their lives in the service of our country".
He focused on the mens' youth who were "spared the weariness of old age".


More than 800 relatives and officials attended the service including Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Archbishop of Sydney Peter Jensen and Chief of Navy Russ Shalders.


Mr Rudd gave a prayer of thanks.


"We remember their courage, their determination and their diligence ... we now live in a better world because of their sacrifice."
One relative, Pat Lee, 87, said it did justice to the 645 crew who disappeared.


"They would have been very proud so many turned out."
The sinking of HMAS Sydney was the worst single loss ever suffered by the Australian navy.


The German mercantile raider Kormoran was also discovered following a search last month.


The Sydney and Kormoran vessels were lost on November 19, 1941 following a close-range battle.


There were 317 survivors from the Kormoran crew who gave the only eyewitness accounts of what happened.


At 12.25pm, three RAAF Hawk aircraft conducted a fly-past of the cathedral.

[Kevin Denlay]

Well, disappointingly, but maybe not so surprisingly I guess, it seems that the ‘theory’ of the IJN being involved in the sinking of HMAS Sydney is still alive and well. The attached from today’s Sydney Morning Herald, a very well read major daily newspaper “down under”.

Why can't people just accept that Detmers just got the better of HMAS Sydney? Is that really so hard to come to grips with?

K

PS. On second thoughts I have decided to remove the word 'respected' from my previous text of a 'well read / respected newspaper' as I feel the term ‘respect’ is somewhat incongruous with the word 'newspaper’ in most contexts.

[herakles]

I agree Kevin. The sub theory just won't lie down and die.

The new enquiry will spend a lot of money and eventually decide that an explanation isn't possible. Though perhaps now they will be brave enough to admit that the Sydney captain made a serious error of judgement. I'm sure he didn't realise just how powerful the Kormoran was.

He came in too close, the ship was raked with gunfire and the bridge and its command was taken out very early in the fight.

This sub theory reminds me of the classic one as to how Harold Holt disappeared. It was supposed to be a Chinese sub wasn't it? :eek:

(For you foreigners - Harold Holt was the Australian PM who disappeared whilst swimming in the surf in 1966)

[Kevin Denlay]

Well, it seems that the article in the paper my original post linked to was just a ‘teaser’ as compared to a multi page piece on the affair in the lift out centre section of the same paper, which sadly is not on-line. Needless to say it is a very good, well balanced and objective non judgmental article covering all aspects / presenting both sides (as it were) of the 'theories' and out right speculation surrounding the sinking. And also the new ‘controversy’ seemingly starting to surround just who supplied what info that helped discover the two wrecks. (How typical!) There are a few ‘historical’ mistakes by some of the quoted people/authors that can now be seen in retrospect, but all in all it is a well balanced non judgmental look at the whole ‘after market’ affair so to speak.

Some highlights:

1) It was not the first time that Bennett had approached ‘danger close' to an unknown merchant vessel in the Indian Ocean.

2) That, according the Naval Board, as written in Admiral Grace’s diary, wait for it, a Vichy sub may have done the deed!

3) It does give some perspective as to how the rumour may have started about IJN sub sinking Sydney / was 'involved' in some way, as apparently three months after Sydney sinking Radio Tokyo was on the airwaves crowing that the crew of Sydney were prisoners in Japan. Add 1 and 1, mix in a Vichy sub and you get 3 (a Jap sub) of course, (il)logical no?

4) Some Australian academics supposedly had figured out where the wrecks were previoulsy and Mearns just use their info! Mearns does not deny he had access to this info, but gives insights into his own archive research that turned up previously unseen German survivor docs. But as he says, if they (the academics) were so confident, why didn’t they mount their own search? And I say hear, hear to that, as have heard similar claims before in other more closer to home 'circles' as it were.

5) Almost forgot. Mearns research and document analysis also credits Detmers with consistently recording the same ‘version’ of events in three separate ‘documents’ that have been found that Detmers ‘wrote’ (a coded notebook, an uncoded but 'dotted' diary and a typed account - written of course after the war).

The final paragraph in the article also paints a very credible and totally believable picture, given the analyses of the wreckage of Sydney, of what may have happened in the very last instant and why there were no survivors. Certainly makes sense to me, given my own limited knowledge of other shipwrecks that actually had recorded (by survivors) a detailed description of the moments prior to their sinking. Shame the article is not on line as all in all a very good objective article, that raises even more questions. I’ll see if I can get it scanned.

Photo below from cover of lift out section of paper showing some of the HMAS Sydney lads in '41 enjoying a laugh and a cuppa (or is that a cuppa and a laugh).

K

[Kevin Denlay]

The final paragraph (below) in an article in Saturdays Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) paints, in my opinion, a very credible and totally plausible picture, given the analyses of the wreckage of Sydney, of what may have happened in the very last instant and why there were no survivors.

Certainly makes sense to me, given my own limited knowledge of other shipwrecks that actually had recorded (by survivors) a detailed description of the moments prior to their sinking.

These guys didnt think they were going to sink, or not as suddenly as it seems they did. And those left in the water post sinking, as no doubt some were, well I dont want to think about their fate. Better a quick end than that.

K

[herakles]

1) It was not the first time that Bennett had approached ‘danger close' to an unknown merchant vessel in the Indian Ocean.

This is most pertinent.

The final paragraph in the article also paints a very credible and totally believable picture, given the analyses of the wreckage of Sydney, of what may have happened in the very last instant and why there were no survivors. Shame the article is not on line as all in all a very good objective article, that raises even more questions. I’ll see if I can get it scanned.
K

I for one would be most obliged to you if you could scan the last bit at least. OK! Now have seen that you did!

I think we must give allowance to the mental set of the time re enemy subs etc. These were frightening days when our very survival was seen to be at stake. We have the benefit of hindsight.

[herakles]

Thanks for posting this Kevin. It makes interesting reading.

The initial enquiry can't have had a great deal to go on. Suppression is a strong word. I wonder if it wasn't partly because of reluctance to make too much known to the public at the time. Possibly because it would have been realised that the attack was poorly handled by Sydney and that after all it was a disaster on a grand scale.

The notion that the crew was trying to make port is very plausible. I wonder just how many officers were left alive.

I guess all radio contact went after the attack. Sydney was close enough to have had transmissions picked up had they been made.

[Kevin Denlay]

Here is the article in full.

K

[herakles]

Well done Kevin. I'm much obliged to you even if others aren't.

[Kevin Denlay]

Full article now posted under following thread.

HMAS Sydney / IJN involvement ‘theory’ still alive and well down under

[herakles]

Thanks. I've seen it and replied.

[hydroggy]

The final paragraph in the article also paints a very credible and totally believable picture, given the analyses of the wreckage of Sydney, of what may have happened in the very last instant and why there were no survivors.
K

Agreed that the article in the Goodweekend was excellent and I am quite convinced that it was a "catastrophy" at the time that the bow separated and while the crew were fully committed to Damage Control that took the ship rapidly to the bottom with most of the crew that were still alive.

I suppose there will be many with their own theories as to what happened before and after the battle. I am particularly drawn to the account of Messerschmidt at http://www.gunplot.net/sydneyww2/sydneymystery.html regarding Sydney's lack of preparedness. Hard to believe I know but it is the only explanation as to why Sydney did not get, at worst, simultaneous fire away.

After the engagement was broken off it was another four hours before the various descriptions by the Kormoran survivors of an “explosion”, “flash of light” or a “flare” in the distance at about 2200. Damage Control was obviously working to some degree. Providing the main machinery spaces were "watertight" the ship should not have sunk.

I have been unable to find a copy of the ship' layout below decks but the Manual Of Seamanship Vol III [1951] Fig. 100 on page 332 shows "Watertight sub-division - cruiser" shows Magazines and Shell Rooms extending almost to the forward boiler room bulkhead with possibly T.S [Transmitting Station??] between the two.

It is pure speculation but had the Magazine eventually exploded with the bow deep in the water the result may have well been to rupture the boiler room bulkhead due to the tamping [I think thet is the right word] effect of the water - taking the ship to the bottom.

There were reportedly "thousands" of images taken by the ROV and I wounder if any were taken "inside" the forepart of the ship where the magazine would have been?

With regard to the "mystery sub"; a complete furphy!

[herakles]

G'day Mike.

Firstly, pls note I tidied up that net link for you.

That link provides a plausible explanation. It's as good as any I've read. There's no doubt Sydney's bridge suffered great damage and as a result with the command taken out, things would have been desperate.

I'll be interested in Kevin's reply to the idea of the magazine exploding.

[Kevin Denlay]

I'll be interested in Kevin's reply to the idea of the magazine exploding.

Hi Herk,

Yes, I always thought that the ‘flash’ the Germans reported seeing ‘on the horizon’ (from day one as it were) was a magazine explosion. Then I thought it even more likely when Mearns first found the wreck with bow separated. But..................IIRC the survey team has ruled this out because the break and environs around break do not show signs of a catastrophic explosion. So.....................I guess not.

K

[herakles]

So that seems to rule out an explosion. So what caused the reported flash I wonder? It seems to have to have been a decent sized explosion of some sort.

[hydroggy]

Hi Herk,

= = = = SNIP = = = =
But..................IIRC the survey team has ruled this out because the break and environs around break do not show signs of a catastrophic explosion. So.....................I guess not.

K

I think that we cannot dismiss the Magazine [or similar internal] explosion just yet.

Here are a couple of quotes from the Press Reports at

http://presspass.findingsydney.com/

From the 5th April:

The general absence of twisted and torn hull plating in the main debris field tells me that it is probable Sydney did not suffer any large explosion in her bow. It seems increasingly likely that Sydney’s bow, severely damaged and weakened by the torpedo strike, broke away with Sydney pointed on a heading of 140 degrees, and still possibly underway. All the evidence indicates that the weather and sea conditions worsened on the evening of November 19th and rough seas may have played a factor in Sydney losing her bow and finally sinking. A number of other WWII ships were torpedoed in the bow like Sydney but none lost their bows, nor sank.

But this also

From the 3 rd April

It was at this point that the wreck of HMAS Sydney ended, with her bow completely missing from immediately forward of “A” turret. The damage in this area showed signs of what may have been a violent explosion as the deck had been rent upwards and folded up over the gun barrels of “A” turret. The ship’s side of Sydney in this area had been peeled back too and this could have been the result of the Kormoran’s torpedo hit on her.

The only problem that I have with all this is that if you do a Google for "Torpedo Damage" - Images you will see that generally the plates buckle INWARDS - I will add a few graphics when I remember how to do it:o.

Take a look at the Sydney photo of the deck in front of A turret:

http://presspass.findingsydney.com/blogs/search_reports/59.jpg

with the caption:

"Above Photograph: “A” turret, with its gun housing destroyed and with the foredeck rent back over its twin gun barrels."

I am sure the Enquiry will have plenty of facts and examples to digest on this aspect.

Now for some pictures.

[hydroggy]

Here are the pictures again but two are only thumbnail images :confused:

[herakles]

What you say is most interesting. That the bow broke away seems certain. But was it an explosion that caused that?

I guess the first thing to determine is just how much damage Sydney received from the attack itself. We know she was close and we know that Kormoran showed no mercy.

Perhaps munitions exploded during the battle or later that might or might not have included the magazine.

And it needs to be decided what role if any that the weather played.

At least the Inquiry has rather more to go on than the original one did.

[HMS Bergamot]

The fact that the deck is rent back does not necessarily mean large internal explosion. Think of Titanic's quarter deck as it is today, that was water pressure. It could be that the Sydney suffered catastrophic flooding due to multiple bulkhead collapse, and as she sank at the bow she broke her back, the bow and stern folding back on themselves causing the rent deck. This could also explain the upside down bow. The heavier stern section would regain its natural position as it sank due to the centre of gravity being low down (engines, boilers, etc). It would be interesting to see the broken section of the bow to see if the decking in that area is also folded back. If she was under way when the bulkheads collapsed she could have driven herself under.

Regards.

[HMS Bergamot]

A thought that just occurred to me. 'A' turret is pointing fore and aft. It never, presumably, got a shot off, with the fo'c'sle deck bent over the muzzles. That indicates, to me, the total surprise that she was taken by.

Regards

[Kevin Denlay]

The fact that the deck is rent back does not necessarily mean large internal explosion. Think of Titanic's quarter deck as it is today, that was water pressure.

Arghh yes, but...............Sydney already was damaged from the torp hit right there fwd of A turret (no?) so compartments that area were flooded. Highly unlikely water pressure did what is seen in that picture. As a matter of fact that is first time I have seen that pic, and if that folded back deck wasn’t done from the initial torp hit explosion then there is no question in my mind what we are seeing there IS the result of a magazine explosion. (See caveat last paragraph though.)

it could be that the Sydney suffered catastrophic flooding due to multiple bulkhead collapse, and as she sank at the bow she broke her back, the bow and stern folding back on themselves causing the rent deck.

Wait a minute that rent deck is fwd of A turret, AT the bow. That is the only break in Sydney, no? (Pardon my ignorance, away at sea whole time search going on and to busy with the aftermath of Exeter discovery to have looked at any Sydney photos since.) I wouldn’t call the bow snapping off at that point ‘breaking her back’ by any means.

If she was under way when the bulkheads collapsed she could have driven herself under.

Yes that is also possible and if so, depending on speed she was going, could explain rent back deck plates fwd of A turret. So yes, seeing if the ‘opposite’ separated section of bow is also rent back fwd (only possible from and explosion of some form) should put to rest that theory or not.

And yes that photo seems to give the impression of turret pointing fwd but, correct me if I am wrong, the story goes that all turrets were trained on Kormoran, no? Sadly, if they were not, then thats just more damning 'evidence' against Sydney's Captain and watch officers.

K

[HMS Bergamot]

No, the evidence from Kormoran's crew was that the guns were pointed fore and aft up to the moment of opening fire. After that it was X turret (The Germans called it 'C' ) that got off 3 shots.

Apparently the Sydney's captain had done the same manouvre only 3 weeks earlier to a merchant ship.

Regards

[Kevin Denlay]

No, the evidence from Kormoran's crew was that the guns were pointed fore and aft up to the moment of opening fire. After that it was X turret (The Germans called it 'C' ) that got off 3 shots..

Is that really correct? That is, Sydney approached with main armament NOT trained on Kormoran? I didn't realize/remember that, but haven’t read any 'Sydney' books for years and as I said was away at sea during discovery, so didn’t get 'up to date' as much as I would have liked with search events and what they actually saw down there.

Apparently the Sydney's captain had done the same manouvre only 3 weeks earlier to a merchant ship.

Yes so I read also. Hmmm, given his, and his bridge officers experience, it appears extremely odd at best, or very lax / poor judgment at worst, for them to not only approach so close, but to not have main armament trained on Kormoran. No wonder Sydney got pummeled! Detmers must have, while no doubt not grinning from ear to ear, realized right away that he was going to have the upper hand from the get go.

My, my, I wonder what the ’verdict’ of the latest inquiry will be then?

K

[Kevin Denlay]

Hey, I think we better belay that last post of mine!

No, the evidence from Kormoran's crew was that the guns were pointed fore and aft up to the moment of opening fire. After that it was X turret (The Germans called it 'C' ) that got off 3 shots.

Well I thought that Sydney’s turrets trained fore and aft, i.e. not aimed at Kormoran, was just too bad to be true, and it is it seems. After reading your post and then quickly posting a reply I thought that what you said just couldn’t be possible, Burnett couldn’t have been so foolish as to approach without his guns bearing, and I was right, or again, so it seems.

I went and dug through my library and what came to hand were five of the books I have on the affair.

According to the following three 'books' ALL Sydney’s turrets were trained on Kormoran;

1) The Raider Kormoran by Theodor Detmers

2) Seeking the Sydney by Glenys McDonald

3) Report on the Loss of Sydney by the Joint Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs (Australia)

And the following two books either state indirectly or infer that Sydney had her main armament aimed at Kormoran;

4) HMAS Sydney Loss and Controversy by Tom Frame

5) Bitter Victory by Wesley Olsen

So Bergamont, I’d like to know where you got your information from that Sydney’s guns were trained fore and aft and not at Kormoran?

K

[HMS Bergamot]

From one that was there!

http://www.gunplot.net/sydneyww2/sydneymystery.html


Regards,

[hydroggy]

Looks like I mis-interpreted the A turret photo. This is from the Press Room page on the Finding Sydney site:

The ROV illuminated the wreck adjacent to X and Y gun turrets which lay mute with their guns still trained to port, pointing forward at an angle of approximately 45 degrees.

Continuing forward we came across “B” and “A” gun turrets, both of which were still trained to port. Part of the top of B turret was completely missing and there was a neat round hole punched through it between the two gun barrels where it had received a direct hit. “A” turret’s housing was also very badly damaged with little of it remaining. It was at this point that the wreck of HMAS Sydney ended, with her bow completely missing from immediately forward of “A” turret. The damage in this area showed signs of what may have been a violent explosion as the deck had been rent upwards and folded up over the gun barrels of “A” turret. The ship’s side of Sydney in this area had been peeled back too and this could have been the result of the Kormoran’s torpedo hit on her.

- John Perryman – Senior Naval Historian (Observer) 03/05

Maybe she did approach casually but it does appear that all guns were eventually brought to bear.

[Kevin Denlay]

Maybe she did approach casually but it does appear that all guns were eventually brought to bear.

Yes according to most accounts they were, and certainly brought to bear prior to the six seconds it supposedly took Detmers to change from benign merchantman to aggresive raider.

And it seems my prior 'surmising' may be correct then in that the initial torp explosion caused the folded back plates at A turret, rather than a later magazine explosion?

K

[Kevin Denlay]

From one that was there!http://www.gunplot.net/sydneyww2/sydneymystery.html



Argh yes but one account does not the facts make. A little more coroborating evidence maybe?

K

[spruso]

Hi Kevin,
Have been following this thread with interest. I have read all the books you mentioned except Seeking the Sydney ( which I must get hold of).

While the exploration of the wreck seems to confirm the German account of the actual battle and it's results, the thing that, for me, remains a mystery is what actually took place that put the Sydney so close to Kormoran.

In one of the books you listed (Can't remember which one now) mention is made of the "missing half hour" in the German interrogation statements. I believe this is also mentioned in Tom Frame's book. This period I believe was when Sydney moved from about 14,000yds to within Kormoran's range. For some reason the Germans were not willing to talk of this time period.

Unfortunately we will probably never know what occured but it is this missing half hour that I think throws some reasonable doubt on the German version of the leadup to the battle. Where they trying to cover something up?

That's my two-bobs worth.
Cheers
Bruce Constable

[HMS DARLASTON]

There is an article in this quarter's issue of "After The Battle", No 141 telling the story of the loss and discovery of HMAS Sidney and KM Kormoran. It contains pictures of both wrecks.

[herakles]

There is an article in this quarter's issue of "After The Battle", No 141 telling the story of the loss and discovery of HMAS Sidney and KM Kormoran. It contains pictures of both wrecks.

But is it accurate? The latest Board of Enquiry is a long way from reporting,

[herakles]

From the BBC today:

An inquiry into Australia's worst naval disaster is to begin hearing evidence from former war veterans.

Some 645 sailors died when HMAS Sydney was lost in a battle with a German cruiser off Western Australia in 1941.

HMAS Sydney was regarded as the pride of the Australian navy and defence officials say the investigation is "important unfinished business".
The inquiry will be run by Sir Terence Cole, who presided over a hearing into Australia's AWB oil-for-wheat scandal.

He is trying to uncover the truth behind one of Australia's most enduring wartime mysteries.

HMAS Sydney perished after being attacked by a German ship, the Kormoran, which was disguised as a Dutch merchant vessel. It too sank but the majority of its crew survived.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44975000/jpg/_44975054_-93.jpg
None of the Sydney's crew survived, but the Kormoran's crew did

But all on board the Sydney were lost and over the years various theories about their demise have emerged as the nation became fascinated with this naval tragedy.

Historians have been unable to unlock the secrets of that day in November 1941.
They have provided no explanation as to why such a superior vessel was sunk by a German boat sailing under a false flag.

There was speculation that the Australian cruiser was really sunk by a Japanese submarine - even though Japan had not yet entered the war.

The wrecks of both HMAS Sydney and the Kormoran were finally located by divers earlier this year.

This week the inquiry will hear from former Australian navy personnel who sailed with the Sydney before it sank more than 65 years ago.

(Ohhh! I've never embedded a pic in text here before!!)

[herakles]

This is taken from today's Melbourne Age newspaper.

It's interesting to me as it relates experiences of survivors of the Kormoran.

GERMAN survivors from the raider Kormoran have given Australian investigators graphic accounts of their World War II battle with the cruiser HMAS Sydney.


Members of the team assisting commission of inquiry


Head Terence Cole travelled to Germany as part of their investigation into the loss of the Sydney and its 645 crew in a battle with the Kormoran off Western Australia in November 1941.


The Germans, now elderly but with strong and clear memories of the battle, described their fear as the Sydney approached looking powerful and beautiful in the early evening light.


And they strongly denied claims made in Australia that they fired on the Sydney before raising their battle flag, that they murdered survivors or that a Japanese or German submarine was involved in the battle.


They said their captain, Theodore Detmers, was an honourable man, the war was terrible and they felt great sorrow for the Australians and the Germans who died.


Sydney was found on the seabed early this year near the wreck of the raider.


In 1941, the Kormoran was disguised as the Dutch merchant ship Straat Malakka and its guns were hidden behind hinged metal flaps.


Former officer Heinz Messerschmidt said Captain Detmers always had a feeling Kormoran would one day meet a ship from what he called "the grey funnel line" and he trained the gun crews constantly so that it would take just six seconds for them to open fire.


Mr Messerschmidt said the crew scrounged from the army two 37-millimetre quick-firing anti-aircraft guns that were placed on either side of the raider's bridge.


"At short range such guns are horribly effective," Mr Messerschmidt said.
Sydney was spotted at about 4pm on November 19 and some of the crew thought it was a sailing vessel because of its high masts. They quickly realised it was a cruiser and were ordered to battle stations.


They could see Sydney preparing to launch an aircraft but it was then swung back on board. Detmers said then it appeared the cruiser was about to leave.


Mr Messerschmidt said he could see sailors walking slowly on the cruiser's deck. "Some stood at the rail watching us." But soon after 5pm the cruiser closed in with its guns and torpedo tubes pointed at the raider.


"The situation was becoming very tense. I knew that one shot from the cruiser into the mine deck would kill us all."


Sydney used a lamp to flash a signal for the Kormoran to send its recognition signal.


"We were terrified," Mr Messerschmidt said. Detmers told the crew he did not know the signal and said they would have to fight.


He ordered the Dutch flag pulled down and the German battle ensign raised. That happened within seconds. Detmers said: "It's now or never!" and then gave the order to lower the flaps and open fire.
"Everything happened at once," Mr Messerschmidt said.


One of the quick-firing guns fired first. "I could see shells from the 37-millimetre cannon with a covering arc of fire hitting and wiping out the many men on the bridge."


The aircraft then blew up with a terrific explosion. "It was horrible to see it unfold," said Mr Messerschmidt. "I saw men running to Sydney's torpedo tubes being shot down." Then Kormoran fired a torpedo which hit Sydney.


By then only one of Sydney's turrets was firing and its shells crippled the Kormoran. "The last time I saw Sydney she appeared just like a fire shower — like the sun setting," Mr Messerschmidt said.


The raider, too, was mortally damaged and Mr Messerschmidt set explosive charges which blew it up. He said he never saw any Australian survivors in the water.


"Both us and the Australian men on Sydney were all caught up in a cruel war," he said. "We fought hard and with decency within the rules of war."

[astraltrader]

I thought you had already started a thread about this inquiry already?
Wouldn`t it have been better to have put this update in there?

[herakles]

For pity sake! As if that matters. Couldn't you comment on the post instead of just being critical?

[astraltrader]

It was a fair point. If you weren`t a moderator I would have moved it. It is one of our tasks to prevent clogging the forum with threads of the same subject. You can moan all you like. To be honest I haven`t read it yet - I took one look at the thread title and thought surely we have had a post about this inquiry before - checked and we had.
If you move it I will take great pleasure in reading it.

[tonclass]

I have to admit, a big smile came over my face, when I saw you two bickering again :). It reminds me of an old married couple !!
I know you both really get on, but you are both so head-strong !!
Don't, for one second ever stop, as it keeps this thread so alive, and keeps the rest of us enthralled as to where it's going to end up next ??

Who will be the first one to file for divorce ????? ;) :)

[herakles]

And a big kiss for you Rik!! :eek:

But what do you think of the main post???????? I was fascinated at the reminiscences of one of the Kormoran crew. It brings perhaps a new perspective to the story. (Which is why I started a new thread :rolleyes::rolleyes:)

[hydroggy]

Mr Messerschmidt said the crew scrounged from the army two 37-millimetre quick-firing anti-aircraft guns that were placed on either side of the raider's bridge.


"At short range such guns are horribly effective," Mr Messerschmidt said.

I won't join in the squabble:D but I do think that this is a key to why Kormoran got the upper hand. This appears from other sites to be similar to a Bofors [40mm] with a slightly slower rate of fire. I also assume that it would have been able to fire almost instantaneously - forget the 6 seconds thing - and at a range of less than a mile [would have to dig to find the actual distance at engagement] - and a rate of fire of at least 60 rpm [probably nearer 100] would have been devastating.

Sydney's main armament etc. may have been trained on Kormoran but I have to say I cannot believe that they had one up the spout and were ready to fire. They were due to arrive Fremantle PM "tomorrow" - I know what I would have been thinking about;)

[BALTICSUBS]

Hi All,

I'll get back to the post. I have studied the Sydney battle for many years and never doubted the German side of the battle which the finding of the wrecks has confirmed.

The question that has to be asked is more around why did she come in so close, of which the German side never really has explained. There would have only been a handful of German crew that would know this answer or be privy to this information.

I believe that Sydney asked for the secret call sign a long time before the battle began. The Kormoran's signalman received a two letter hoist which meant that it was something to do with a preparing for a cyclone which did not make sense to the Germans. This was in fact the two middle letters for the Dutch ships secret callsign, in which Kormoran was supposed to reply with the outer two letters. She didn't and from this point Sydney would have know the vessel was suspect and signaled her to stop. Their is no evidence of a warning shot being fired but there is of Sydney closing Kormoran's position. I believe they didn't ask for the secret call sign when they were close to Kormoran, they were going to board her and the game was up.

Everything points to this, and what happened after this only Detmers would know. The battle began and we know the result. Detmers mentions a couple of times about being worried about his actions in his book, and what the Australians on the cruiser would say of his actions? Of course he didn't have to answer the questions as their were no survivors. In the end even if this was the case, he probably obeyed Sydney's demand and lured her in, nothing illegal about that I guess.

Cheers DB.

[herakles]

From today's Melbourne Age:

A SAILOR believed to have escaped the wreckage of the Australian cruiser HMAS Sydney when it was sunk off Western Australia in World War II will have a grave on mainland Australia.

The body was buried in an unmarked grave on Christmas Island after being found floating on a raft near there in February 1942. It was recovered by the navy in 2006.

Also on the raft was a pair of boots of a size unlikely to be worn by the dead sailor, raising the possibility that two men survived the cruiser's sinking. Examination of a tiny piece of shrapnel inside the sailor's skull found it matched that used in German naval shells in World War II.

The remains will be reburied at Geraldton on November 19, the anniversary of the Sydney's sinking.

The navy has overseen DNA testing of dozens of relatives of Sydney crew members, but has not yet found a match with the sailor.

(There is uncertainty that the remains were that of a survivor of Sydney. Especially as not all of him was found. Christmas Island is a long way from where Sydney was lost.)

[battlestar]

G'Day All

I'm sorry to say that the Sydney Veterans are being snubbed, in favour of VIPs from the east, for the funeral:mad:. Check out the story at...

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24657017-5008620,00.html

The readers comments, well, most support the Veterans, but a couple of idiots that have posted are really needing a proper education, or a 2 by 4 across the head!

This morning, I was in Fremantle and watched the fourth HMAS Sydney (FFG-03) depart for the ceremony to be held over the wreck site in two days time. Here are a couple of pics of her departure.

[John Odom]

That is a disgrace! Those who were there, on the ship, should be the first invited.

[battlestar]

G'Day All

That is a disgrace! Those who were there, on the ship, should be the first invited.

I totally agree John. I think one of the reader's posts from the article, by Disgruntled Veteran, says it all as far as I'm conserned.

[astraltrader]

You are right Ian. An utterly insensitive decision.

[kookaburra]

Sorry, I'm confused about this. There were no survivors from HMAS Sydney, all 645 lost including possibly this poor man being buried. Do you gents mean the relatives of the lost sailors should have been invited before any others, perhaps others who had served on HMAS Sydney before her final voyage?

I'm not arguing your points of view, just puzzled about a possible misconception of this truly tragic story. I think Sydney was one of only one or two instances in WW11, perhaps all modern wars, of a major warship being lost with not one survivor. In fact I can't think of any other just at present (maybe an American cruiser in the Pacific, right at the end of the war?). Anyway, Sydney was our best ship - and it was a huge blow to this country at a critical time.

[kookaburra]

Sorry, it's very late here and I was drowsily waiting on a work call from US time zone. I've now read the article and get your meaning. John O's reply caught my eye, and I thought he may not know the Sydney's story. Ignore above.

[herakles]

Perhaps I've got it wrong but I understand that restrictions were placed on numbers because the cemetery can't handle large crowds and that everyone was invited to a memorial service nearby. (Frankly I wouldn't believe the smoke from the mouth of a Murdoch publication).

I repeat that there is no clear evidence that these remains belong to a sailor from that ship.

[John Odom]

I apologise for the confusion.

I knew the story , but chose my words very poorly. I meant, but did not say, men who had served on that ship in another time, and/or who were serving on other ships at that time. The fellow sailors of those lost should have been given first consideration in forming the guest list.

[herakles]

From today's Age newspaper:

Professor Tom Frame, director of St Marks National Theological Centre, formerly bishop to the Australian Defence Force and a naval officer for 15 years, is convinced that blaming Sydney's captain Joseph Burnett. is unfair.
Since the discovery of Sydney and Kormoran on the ocean floor off Shark Bay this year Frame has extensively updated his book HMAS Sydney, Australia's Greatest Naval Tragedy. Frame believes that Burnett was somehow convinced that he had come across a lightly armed German supply ship that was planning to meet the Kormoran — and not the heavily armed raider itself.

He thinks Burnett was about to send a boarding party to capture the German vessel, while hoping to rescue any allied merchant seamen who might have been held prisoner on board it. Then he could lie in wait for the Kormoran and destroy it.

But as the Australian ship came closer to the mystery vessel, Frame believes, the Kormoran dropped its disguise and blasted the bridge of the cruiser with shells from one of two quick-firing anti-aircraft guns officers had scrounged from the German army. Burnett and other officers on the cruiser's bridge probably died instantly.

The Germans were accused of making false claims about the battle, of opening fire on the Sydney after surrendering to the cruiser and of murdering Australian survivors in the lifeboats. "This may be an opportunity to say we were wrong and they do deserve an apology," Frame told The Age.

The graphic pictures of the wrecks and their positions on the seabed strongly supported the German account. They've also helped convince Frame that Burnett was attempting to capture the German ship.
"I'm one of the few people who thinks that, but the only reason for coming near to a ship is that you intend to board it and you do that because you think it is safe or prudent to do that," he says.

Frame says that contrary to many claims that he was inexperienced, Burnett was a competent officer who was not foolhardy. "What made him think it was safe to do so, we will never know."

When he discovered the raider late on that afternoon it was very effectively disguised as a Dutch merchant ship and when he became suspicious Burnett's only options were to board it or to stand off 12 kilometres away and use the greater range of Sydney's guns to sink the raider. But if the German vessel had been carrying survivors from Allied merchant ships it had sunk then they would have gone down with it. "Had he done that and sent Allied sailors down with the Kormoran we'd now be denouncing him," Frame says.

Earlier in the war Kormoran did have captured Allied sailors on board. Burnett was in a very difficult situation. "It wasn't a no-win situation, but it meant that he had to take some risks," Frame says.

Frame does not believe Kormoran surrendered to Sydney, but it probably gave the Australians the impression it would not resist boarding. "I think Burnett thought he'd captured Kormoran's supply ship and that by not sinking it he could wait in the area and get Kormoran as well," Frame says.
He closed in and lost his tactical advantage. "He was not incompetent and he was not reckless. All of his previous experience is consistent with a competent, confident cruiser captain and he doesn't deserve in the absence of evidence to have his reputation besmirched."

The loss of the ship and its crew will be commemorated today at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra, the HMAS Sydney II memorial in Geraldton and in Melbourne at the Shrine of Remembrance, starting at 10am.

[kookaburra]

I think this makes the 25th book written about the loss of HMAS Sydney over the years, and incredibly, her discovery and the new enquiry more than 60 years later makes the circumstances of her loss front page news again.

I feel rather sorry for the man pictured below, Captain Burnett's son, 78-year-old Rory Burnett, and hope Dr Frame's new book brings him some late-life comfort.

In 1942, Prime Minister John Curtin privately told journalists in Canberra - notably the Melbourne Herald's Joe Alexander, who leaked it - that Sydney had been lost through 'carelessness, or a sense of invincibility.' And Burnett has been damned ever since.

Of all the books I have read on Sydney's loss - including those that posed incredible theories such as a Japanese submarine delivering mail to the Kormoran taking part in the action - I found one by a former West Australian academic, Barbara Winter, HMAS Sydney: Fact, Fantasy and Fraud , Boolarong Publications, Brisbane (1984) to be most instructive, in that it pointed out some little-remembered circumstances that placed this battle, and Burnett's decision to go close to Kormoran, in a wider context. A couple of points from it:

In February, 1942, the captain of the New Zealand cruiser Leander, Captain R.H. Bevan, did almost the same thing when his ship encountered and sank the raider RAMB 1 in the Indian Ocean.

Bevan (Winter says) took his ship to within 3000 yards of RAMB 1 and was also taken by surprise, and was damned lucky their opening fire missed. The New Zealand ship was also lucky his opponent didn't have the anti-tank guns which the Kormoran's captain Detmers had specifically scrounged from the German Army when commissioning his 9000-ton ship, a diesel-electric, the largest and most modern of all the German auxiliary cruisers


Also in February 1942 in the Indian Ocean, the heavy cruiser HMAS Canberra , with Leander was searching for the German pocket battleship Admiral Scheer , when Canberra tracked down two suspicious ships, which its captain, H.B. Farncomb, thought was a raider and its supply ship.

Farncomb stayed right out of range and fired on the supposed raider - they were the freighters Coburg and Ketty Bovig - from the extreme range of 19000 yards, almost ten miles, and used a huge amount of ammunition, about 80 8-inch shells to put them away.

Farncomb, later an admiral in charge of the postwar Navy, was quite severely criticised for this expensive wastage -
and Joseph Burnett was one of the Naval Staff officers doing the complaining. ' Fancy wasting all those 'bricks' (shells) on two harmless freighters, ' Barbara Winter records him saying.

So he wouldn't himself have wanted to make that ultra-cautious, long range mistake.

To Burnett's mind, the Kormoran,if it did prove to be an enemy flag vessel - would have made a very valuable war prize. As Winter, and now Dr Frame suggests for another reason, he may have wanted to board her, and that's another possible reason he came in so close.

Again there was example of the Canberra. Farncomb had fired from such a distance that the German crew had time to scuttle the Ketty Bovig before Canberra could get in and claim her. This had been much-discussed at Naval headquarters, and there was some pressure to get close enough to capture enemy mercantile vessels before they could be scuttled.

So much came to light in the postwar years that excited wild theories. One was the discovery of letters written to Germany by Captain Detmers (an ardent Nazi) and I think (from memory) the Kormoran's doctor, which contained sketches with a concealed code, from their POW camp in Dhuringle Victoria (from which Detmers was a one-time escapee).

Nonethless, at present, the discovery of Sydney's wreck seems to confirm the accounts of the battle given by the German survivors. No Japanese submarine. No massacre in the lifeboats. Whatever Burnett's intentions, Sydney fell into a trap, and within moments - as a result of the anti-tank gun fire - Burnett and everyone else on her bridge was dead.
It also seems possible that parts of the cruiser lost electrical power for a time.

Cables found still wrapped around the guns of one of Sydney's rear turrets on the seabed suggest they were pulled around to train manually. Well, I hope I'm not pre-empting in any way the future findings of the new HMAS Sydney enquiry.

[herakles]

What a most interesting and detailed reply to my thread! :)

I was struck by Frame's theory, especially that part relating to possible Allied prisoners being on board Kormoran.

The sad fact is that we will never know the answer.

The original board of enquiry failed completely. There's no reason to think the new one will do any better.

[HMS Bergamot]

Fantastic post, kookaburra. Many thanks.

[hydroggy]

I don't think I have seen anyone talking about the Enquiry itself.

Take a look at http://www.defence.gov.au/sydneyii/; I am finding it absolutely enthralling. I am now reading Montgomery's examination and it appears that Sydney was hit by 47 5.9 in shells on the starboard side and 40 on the port as interpreted by DSTO from the images of the wreck.

Don't worry about the past books - read and make up your own mind!

[herakles]

From The Age newspaper:

HMAS Sydney shelled, torpedoed: inquiry


January 12, 2009 - 11:49AM

Computer reconstructions of the fatal encounter between HMAS Sydney and German merchant raider Kormoran show the Australian warship was not only hit by a torpedo but also peppered with close-range gunfire.

HMAS Sydney was lost with all 645 crew on November 19, 1941, following a battle with the disguised Kormoran off the West Australian coast.

Observations from the wreck site and accounts from Kormoran survivors have enabled a team of defence scientists and naval architects at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) to create computer graphics of the battle between the two warships.

The stark images were shown at an inquiry into the ship's sinking in Sydney on Monday.

The graphics, shown from the Kormoran's view, show Sydney's port side being sprayed with shellfire and then hit by a large torpedo, before the ship turns and is bombarded with more shellfire on its starboard side.

Another graphic then shows the doomed warship sinking onto its side as black smoke billows out.

"The battle between HMAS Sydney and HSK Kormoran was unique as a sea battle in that HMAS Sydney was not only hit by a torpedo, but also pounded by accurate and sustained gunfire from close range for an extended period of time," Commodore Jack Rush QC told the inquiry.

"Other World War II ships had survived single torpedo hits, while others survived shell hits from larger calibre shells.

"HMAS Sydney, however, had to endure the sustained attack of 15 centimetre shells at close range, 20 millimetre shells raking the upper deck at a rate of more than 100 rpm, and sustained shelling by 3.7 centimetre guns."

[Maritime Michael Ian]

'Morning/evening Herk!,,

Have been reading the posts again, and very many thanks for all your info, I only hope that at the end of the 'enquiry' "Sydney's" Captain and crew are not made scapegoats!

Odd things happen in war and there is no doubt, to my way of thinking, that lady luck plays one hell of a part in it.There can be as much planning as you like but a "lucky event " can turn the situation. Who, for instance, would have thought that one shell apparantly piercing the space between the deck and barbette on HMS Hood would have had the effect that it did! Lady luck on the one side, and sheer bad luck on the other!

Ian

[herakles]

G'Day Ian!

You have raised a can of worms with your post! Luck plays such a big role, or can.

Richard III damn nearly made it through to Henry Tudor to cut him down. What if he had?

In the case of Sydney, I'm not so sure. It's moving toward the idea that the captain made a grave error by steaming far too close.

Here's today's report:

Families share drama of the Sydney's last battle


Bellinda Kontominas
January 13, 2009 http://images.theage.com.au/2009/01/12/346388/PM_sydney-420x0.jpg An image showing the damage to HMAS Sydney's port side. Photo: Supplied

FAMILY members of the crew killed during the sinking of HMAS Sydney watched in silence yesterday as computer-generated images showed for the first time the extent of damage sustained in the attack.


The 645 crew members died when the ship sank on November 19, 1941, after an attack by the German raider Kormoran, about 100 nautical miles off Western Australia.
During an inquiry into the loss of the warship yesterday, family of the crew and defence personnel appeared shocked as they saw a computer-simulated reconstruction of the battle.


The reconstruction, pieced together by defence scientists and naval architects using observations from the wreck site and accounts from Kormoran survivors, showed the devastating impact of heavy shell and gunfire that took out the bridge and targeted both port and starboard sides. A torpedo attack ripped through the port bow.
The Sydney sustained more than 87 hits from big artillery shells. Almost 4000 kilograms of munition hit the vessel. Smaller shells were also fired.


Counsel assisting the inquiry, Commander Jack Rush, said the sustained artillery attack, combined with the impact of the torpedo, made it a "unique" sea battle because other warships had remained afloat after enduring gunfire or torpedoes, but had never been subjected to both.


"HMAS Sydney was severely damaged," Commander Rush said. "She had a large number of casualties. Several major fires and many small fires burned out of control, smoke filled the lower decks and obscured the upper deck, her bow was flooding and much of the ship was without electrical power."


The initial attack lasted no more than five minutes, but it took the Sydney about four hours to sink.


Figures presented by defence scientists and naval architects suggest that at least 70 per cent of the crew was incapacitated or trapped by fire, smoke, fumes or blocked escape passages.


It was unknown whether any of the crew escaped, but any who had gone into the water probably had no chance because liferafts were damaged and no ships were nearby.
The inquiry continues.

[sons of anzac]

Hi All - My first post.

For my 2 cents worth I dont think anything untoward by the Germans- just a ruse of war by a ship that was outgunned if they had fought a traditional battle. It was a classic disguised raider action.

The reasons of the captain of the Sydney (or the officer of the watch- but I'm assuming Captain would have been called to the bridge on sighting the ship) in closing that close to the Kormoran will never be known but we do know they were aware a German supply ship was loose in the Indian Ocean and may have thought the Kormoran to be that ship and paid the price for such thinking when the ship unmasked and became Kormoran rather than the Kormorans supply ship. That hypothesis would make some sense of the comments by some of the German survivors that they thought Sydney was in the process of preparing to send across a boarding party. I'm sure the Sydney knew the Kormoran was more than the Dutch Straat Malakka but erred in thinking she was a supply ship rather than the raider itself.

Once the action was finished, Sydney would have suffered large numbers of dead / wounded and a large percentage of the fit survivors would probably have been below decks trying to shore up damaged bulkheads from the torpedo hit, maintain the engines and continue to fight the fires throughout the vessel. I'd bet absolutely minimum number of men would have been available on the smashed deck to maintain a watch.

I have read the bow seems to have come away and the end would have been pretty quick for those below decks, the small numbers of men left in the sea from the watch party would not have had a chance.

[kookaburra]

A couple of points on this simulation and the question of why Captain Burnett took Sydney dangerously close:

The simulation shows Sydney's A turret still intact, and I wonder about this.

Michael Montgomery (son of Sydney's British navigator) in his 1981 book 'Who Sank The Sydney?' states that on its outward voyage in September ('41) Sydney's A turret had been knocked off its rollers and jammed to port in heavy seas in the Great Australian Bight.
There's a photo of this (below). Then, there were German survivor reports that in the opening moments of the battle this perhaps still defective turret had been blown off the ship and plunged into the sea.

I'm just not sure whether the wreck discovery has confirmed this or not: I don't recall reading anything of it after the wreck discovery.

The other point about Burnett's decision to approach within 1,500 yards of the disguised Kormoran, posing as Straak Malakka, is one I've mentioned earlier. The criticism Farncomb faced after HMAS Canberra expended so many 8-inch shells (80 I think) from long range in disposing of the raider supply ships Ketty Bovig and Cobourg earlier, and that one of these vessels was able to scuttle. After that some pressure arose in naval HQ (where Burnett was posted then) for the warships to get closer and capture enemy supply vessels as valuable prizes.

As Barbara Winter's well-researched book points out, it was a point that seemed to be illustrated when the New Zealand cruiser Leander sank the raider Ramses. Leander's captain took his ship within three miles of the target, and was lucky to escape damage or worse when the raider opened fire first.

Still, it's going to be hard to escape any conclusion at this enquiry that Captain Burnett made a disastrous decision
in getting that close to a suspect vessel.

[herakles]

The two points you are are most tantalising. The second especially has a ring of truth for sure. Especially considering that Sydney was not all that far from home.

I guess all this will come out.

As an aside, I was interested yesterday to read blogs on this news item. One blogger said the whole business was a waste of taxpayers money. Several broadsides followed mine. The second said that if the navy was going to spend all this money in order to improve ship design, he didn't have much faith in the navy.

What these bloggers have missed on is at least the need for the many hundreds of relatives who need closure, though I'm sure the discovery of the ship's remains helped.

But it also said to me that there are some really stupid people out there.

And here's the latest from the enquiry:

HMAS Sydney sustained 87 hits by medium-sized shells in its final battle, an inquiry into its sinking in World War II has been told.

Forty-one 15cm shells hit the Sydney's port side and 46 struck its starboard side.

Experts are analysing the wrecks to determine how the Australian warship sank and what happened to its crew.

A team of scientists including experts from DSTO and the Australian division of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects is giving evidence about the wreckage.

[sons of anzac]

With her upperworks and hull so peppered with hits it gives credit to the reason why no signal from the ship was recieved after the action- simply they were too shot up, radios and aerials broken or destroyed and signallers killed ro wounded.

In the time available to them the survivors after the action they may just not have had the available time, and specialised men, to rig a radio up and try to get a signal out.

In fact, reading of the number of hits, it may have been had they even made shore the ship would have been little more value than scrap.

[herakles]

G'Day sons of ANZAC! ;) Welcome to our forum.

What you say is undoubtedly correct.

[sons of anzac]

[QUOTE=herakles;32193]G'Day sons of ANZAC! ;) Welcome to our forum.

Thanks

[Maritime Michael Ian]

Appropo of my comments above regarding scapegoats, I'm reminded of Admiral Lord Nelson's comment that "no Captain can do wrong who lays alongside the enemy".... or words to that effect.

I agree with Herk that the families of "Sydney" need to be able to have a closure at long last.... that, no doubt, also includes the Captain's family as well.... he died as weel.

Ian

[kookaburra]

I have to say I'm disgusted with the scant reporting of the HMAS Sydney enquiry.

Yesterday was a sort of highlight, with the digitalized reconstruction of the battle, and counsel assisting Commander Rush's detailing of the tornado of fire HMAS Sydney received in the first minutes of the battle: the torpedo hit forward, 87 six-inch shell hits, and innumerable others from the anti-tank gun raking the the bridge and decks at point blank range.

The Age gave this 300 words or so on page 4, with a picture and a ship diagram too small to decipher. I haven't seen the SMH or The Australian's coverage in paper form, but they look scant too. At least the SMH has sent a first-rate and experienced hand to cover it - Malcolm Brown (most famous for his dedicated coverage of the Lindy Chamberlain enquiries).

But my point is this. We are dealing with a major event in Australia's maritime history, the nation's worst nautical disaster. The discovery and study of HMAS Sydney's wreck makes this enquiry inestimably more important than those that have gone before. There was a time when broadsheet newspapers would have covered the news, such as that mentioned upfront, and given at least a couple of pages to a comprehensive coverage of the detailed evidence at the enquiry on the inside pages.

Somewhere, at some point, there would have been some expert analysis of the story unfolding at the inquiry.

Well, no longer.

Sixty-six years ago two ships carrying more than 1000 men met on an empty stretch of the eastern Indian Ocean and fought a most ferocious ambush type of battle at close quarters, in which 726 of them died.

Not one of the 645 men aboard the Australian ship survived. It is one of the nation's great mysteries, and one which has haunted the national psyche for decades. At last count, I found that some 25 books had been written about the loss of the Sydney, floating many theories - but with the wreck found, this enquiry is the one that is supposed to give us the answers at last.

No-one seeking a more expert, detailed examination of the issues can be satisfied with the attention that the Australian press is giving this. The magazines of the capital ships Hood and Barham exploded, blowing those ships up completely, and still - yes, with rescue ships nearby - there were some survivors.

We now hear that Sydney remained afloat for five hours. Yet her case remains virtually unique in the annals of 20th century naval warfare, in the total loss of her complement.

Is it old news? Yes it is. Does it matter nonetheless? Yes it does, in my view very much. The men of Sydney deserved better than this, as do their families, still seeking closure, after all this time.

How very shallow our once-great newspapers have become.

I'm ashamed of them. But then ... I was always taught that newspapers mirror their society.


Anyway, here's Malcolm Brown's latest report from the enquiry:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/design-left-hmas-sydney-vulnerable/2009/01/13/1231608708325.html

[astraltrader]

Excellent sentiments Jeff which I feel sure will be shared by all in the forum whether Australian or not.

There was a time not that long ago when slights such as the one you have outlined from your Australian Press would have infuriated me but sadly occurrances of this nature are pretty well the norm in the world we now occupy.

[Harley]

Some light reading for those interested;

"HMAS Sydney II Commission of Inquiry

Report on Technical Aspects of the Sinking of

HMAS Sydney and HSK Kormoran"

400+ pages long and about 18mb available here;
http://www.defence.gov.au/sydneyii/DSTO/DSTO.003.0001_LR.pdf

Simon

[HMS Bergamot]

Excellent sentiments Jeff which I feel sure will be shared by all in the forum whether Australian or not.

There was a time not that long ago when slights such as the one you have outlined from your Australian Press would have infuriated me but sadly occurrances of this nature are pretty well the norm in the world we now occupy.


The word you're looking for, Terry, is 'SENSATIONALISM', I think. If its not the latest baby by the latest teen star, or the latest gaff by the latest Prince, then they're not really interested.

Wonder how much coverage Bill Stone gets. Couple of lines? Maybe a paragraph and a picture?

[Harley]

Wonder how much coverage Bill Stone gets. Couple of lines? Maybe a paragraph and a picture?

Stone's passing has been given some coverage at least in the British newspaper media - most papers I've seen have had long articles on him. I have yet to come across an obituary or even a news item on the BBC News website, but that doesn't really surprise me.

I had to be informed by someone I barely know that the inquiry's report had been made public!

Simon

[herakles]

There was a time that newspapers led. They didn't earn titles like "The Thunderer" by sitting on their hands.

Now they are led. They copy whatever they feel the public wants. The only thing they seem to still insist on is to portray the news according to the political views of the owner.

It's worth realising that the newspapers are now in serious trouble. Circulation is way down. Some have even abandoned their print edition altogether.

[spruso]

My old Economics teacher once asked the class in 1958,
"What was the pupose of a newspaper?" The class replied "To report the news".
"Wrong!", he said - "Their purpose is to make money"
How true that has become - unfortunately at the expense of quality reporting.

Cheers
Bruce

[kookaburra]

Some light reading for those interested;

"HMAS Sydney II Commission of Inquiry

Report on Technical Aspects of the Sinking of

HMAS Sydney and HSK Kormoran"

400+ pages long and about 18mb available here;
http://www.defence.gov.au/sydneyii/DSTO/DSTO.003.0001_LR.pdf

Simon

Simon, a word of high thanks for locating and posting this link to the DSTO analysis of the Sydney-Kormoran action.


It answers just about everything I felt missing from the newspaper coverage on the actual battle. Although there is predictability a mass of technical detail on the design and capabilities of every section of these types of ships, but for anyone with a deeper interest it is well worth wading through: there are interesting comparisons to damage on other ships from WW11 to the Falklands, and a terrorist attack on a ferry (I didn't know, for example, that HMS Neptune had only one survivor when lost in a minefeild).

A couple of points: On the question raised in my earlier post based on earlier book readings , on whether Sydney's A Turret was blow into the sea. No it wasn't: It remains on the wreck, but half the roof of B turret was blown off and landed in the sea - perhaps my memory or the Montgomery book was a confusion of that fact.

The technical analysis also questions whether the 3.7cm secondary gun on Kormoran was a German Army anti-tank weapon, a fact that books attribute to Captain Detmers in some detail (I think it is Barbara Winter who narrates a story of how the German captain made a special trip to a German Army HQ to secure it) and that it was this weapon that quickly wiped out Sydney's command structure on the bridge. The DSTO analysis says the German anti-tank guns of the time had a range of only 600 yards and a slow rate of fire. That it was more likely an AA gun, and that Sydney's bridge complement was decimated by a 6 in (15cm) main armament shell hit discenable on the ship's wreck. This demolishes another widely held belief in much of the literature of the battle.

Although dry and dispassionately analytical, the DSTO battle analysis in full is a terrible story of utter devastation and carnage on HMAS Sydney in both the first and second phases of the battle. One can't imagine the feelings of the families reading it, and viewing the video reconstruction.

It's inescapable that the German ship, with far fewer main guns to train (four, I think, of her six 15cm guns could be brought to bear, compared to Sydney's eight) achieved the upper hand from almost the first moment. Kormoran's first salvo missed, I was surprised to learn: Sydney fired a full salvo that also missed, but after the five seconds to the Kormoran's next salvo and with the secondary armament raking the decks, the German attack was all over her.

Sydney's forward turrets were put out of action at the start. Y Turret was firing but missed. Really it was only X turret, scoring hits, that was able to do something to even up the ledger, and created the damage that also removed this very dangerous raider from the sea.

Thinking about this analysis, off the top of my head I could
only quickly think of Bismarck, and perhaps the Italian heavy cruisers raked so devastatingly by Warspite at Matapan, whose crews were subject to such an immense ordeal by fire, and with the light cruiser of course having only very modest armour protection. The analysis says the 87 15cm shell hits identified on the Sydney's wreck is conservative, and that other hits may have been concealed by its descent and collision with the seabed, and the corrosion that has taken place since.

By the time Sydney - down at the bow from an early the torpedo hit - turned and passed very close across Kormoran's stern (the second phase, an action interpreted in some books as an attempt to ram) her guns could no longer train, and - unable to reply - she then received massive shelling damage all down her starboard side, which, I guess, ended all chances of survival.

Well, that's what I can draw from this link. I assume the enquiry will soon get into detailed analysis of what might have moved Captain Burnett to place his stronger ship in this vulnerable and ultimately tragic position.

As I think I've said before, I feel very sorry now for his son, Rory Burnett, a 75-year-old former naval officer living in Queensland last I heard, and naturally, a staunch defender of his dad's honor. Yes. I feel very sad about all of it - and so must many others right now. It must have been utter hell on that ship.

[hydroggy]

A couple of points on this simulation and the question of why Captain Burnett took Sydney dangerously close:

====SNIP===
The other point about Burnett's decision to approach within 1,500 yards of the disguised Kormoran, posing as Straak Malakka, is one I've mentioned earlier. The criticism Farncomb faced after HMAS Canberra expended so many 8-inch shells (80 I think) from long range in disposing of the raider supply ships Ketty Bovig and Cobourg earlier, and that one of these vessels was able to scuttle. After that some pressure arose in naval HQ (where Burnett was posted then) for the warships to get closer and capture enemy supply vessels as valuable prizes.
=====SNIP=====


I think you may have the answer if Burnett thought that Kormoran was actually her supply vessel. Having been in Navy Office at the time of the Farncomb incident I have no doubt it would have been in his mind even if subconsciously.

Being a lazy sod ;) - can you point me to a report or whatever on the Farncomb rocket please?

I must admit I found the DSTO analysis engrossing and have d/l to my HDD.

Forget the press - the Defence web site is the place to keep up with this historical drama.

[CharlesRollinsWare]

kookaburra offered the following a page back:

A couple of points on this simulation ... The simulation shows Sydney's A turret still intact, and I wonder about this.

Michael Montgomery (son of Sydney's British navigator) in his 1981 book 'Who Sank The Sydney?' states that on its outward voyage in September ('41) Sydney's A turret had been knocked off its rollers and jammed to port in heavy seas in the Great Australian Bight.
There's a photo of this (below). Then, there were German survivor reports that in the opening moments of the battle this perhaps still defective turret had been blown off the ship and plunged into the sea.

I'm just not sure whether the wreck discovery has confirmed this or not: I don't recall reading anything of it after the wreck discovery.

First, if the exhibits thus far (many being of Montgomery's book) and the actual condition and location of the wreck show anything, it is that everything he offered is absurd - nothing is substantiated if for no other reason that the wreck is where it is (which he claims it could not be) ... but anyway ...

The wreck shows 'A' Turret on the ship, ableit shot to pieces by four 5.9-cm hits and a torpedo hit that vented through her lower structure. More importantly, no German account mentions any turret being blown overboard, let alone 'A'. Rather, countless men topside observed, at or around the ninth salvo, and before the torpedo hit, the roof of her second turret, in front of the bridge (i.e., 'B' turret) blow off and onto the bridge. That the wreck confirms that the roof of that turret is, in fact, blown off by either a hit at the base of her barbette or, more likely IMO, a hit square on the turret face between the two barrels is something that could not have been made up. In fact, it is one of four things included in every German account - the others being the first salvo to hit landing on the bridge, the aircraft being hit, the torpedo hit after these and submerging the bow, at least appearing too, briefly.

In fact, many "differences" in the German accounts can be attributed to different interpretations of the time between these events.

I encourage anyone interested in the Kormoran-Sydney fight to screw the secondary sources and go on-line to the Australian Archives and download and read the 700+ pages of translated summary survivor accounts [which are in one big, and several small groupings that I would gladly cite]. IMO, many other differences in the German accounts can be attributed to early interviews on the rescuing ships by non professional interviewers and the lack of knowledge of the actual questions asked. Consider:

German claims that the disquise was raised and fire opened within six seconds. Many say this - others say longer - BUT ... the Germans never said everything fired in six seconds, and it would not make sense that it did.

So, what were the individual Germans asked asked?

1. When did you open fire (2,0-cm and 3,7-cm would have do so within six seconds)

2. When did your guns (cannon, main guns) fire - well, obviously, many seconds afterwards

3. When did the first salvo fire (there were two partial ranging salvos - the tirst "salvo" was, in fact, the third/fourth (see below) time the main guns fired) So, what was the interviewee talking about - 1, or 3?

I'm sure you get the gist - what was really asked and what was the individual talking about???

For example, many note that the first salvo was short - but - others say a "one shot was short" One interviewee answered this supposed problem. He was the gunner on one of the two (I forget which) midship guns. They got the word wrong and were set up to fire to port, not starboard. So, when they unmasked, his gun was off by 140 degrees, and hastily had to turn to starboard to fire and finally did so after the others and landed way short. When you look at what others said knowing this, the singular use of "shot" suddenly means something. And, BTW, I have never seen anyone else ever mention this interview.

My recommendation is, go to the source, read what they said in 1941, and then view the wreck report. It was, for me, amazing that what they said then is fully backed up by a wreck that no one could have ever imagined anyone would ever see.

Just my two cents worth.

Mark E. Horan

[kookaburra]

Hydroggy, I have read reports on Farncomb's expenditure of shells on Ketty Brovig and Coburg (supply ships of raider Atlantis) several times - once, somewhere, with the comment that it fortunate HMAS Canberra didn't encounter Admiral Scheer (for which she was searching) if her gunnery was that poor.

Anyway, Barbara Winter's book HMAS Sydney: Fact, Fantasy and Fraud Boolarong, Brisbane (1984) deals with these questions - the waste of shells: Captain Bevan and Leander's close shave in going within 3000m of Ramb 1, and the mounting pressure to capture enemy supply ships as prizes - in Chapter 5, most specifically pp60-61.

On the Canberra matter, the Second Naval Member Commodore J.W. Durnford wrote a comment on the expenditure of ammunition and said that much would have been saved in Farncomb had gone closer ( Canberra fired 80 shells from 14,000 yards). And Captain Burnett, then Assistant to the Chief of Naval Staff at HQ in Melbourne, is reported as commenting to a staff meeting at the time:"Fancy wasting all those bricks on two harmless freighters."


BTW, Joseph Burnett was just the third Australian from the first 1913 intake of Royal Australian Naval College to reach the rank of captain, after Harold Farncomb and John Augustine Collins being first and second. And the German captain, Detmers, had visited Australia in peacetime, and had even been aboard HMAS Canberra, Winter says.


Fourth photo is Burnett's son, Rory Burnett, fifth is Theodore Detmers.

[herakles]

Here's the latest report from the Sydney enquiry from The Age. It casts doubt on the body washed up some time after the loss. It was never known that the remains were from the Sydney at all.

A scientist says there was a piece of metal in the skull of an unknown sailor who is believed to have been on the wreck of the HMAS Sydney.

HMAS Sydney was lost after a battle with the German raider Kormoran off the West Australian coast on November 19, 1941.

The sailor, whose body washed ashore at Christmas Island in a life raft in February 1942, is believed to be the only crew member found after the cruiser sank with the loss of all 645 on board.

He was buried on the island but a team of experts exhumed his remains in 2006.
University of Sydney senior lecturer in anatomy and forensic osteology Denise Donlan recovered the remains from the unmarked grave and examined them.
She has worked with the NSW police, coroner and defence on the recovery and identification of skeletal remains.

Dr Donlan concluded the skeleton was that of a Caucasian male aged between 22 and 31, with a height of between 168.2cm and 187.8cm.

The skull had several fractures and a piece of metal which had pierced the forehead.
The skeleton also had bowed leg bones and so-called "squatting facets" which were normally present in people of indigenous or Asian descent.

But she said the defects could also result from occupational stress and repetitive movement.

"It's unusual, but you see it sometimes," she told the inquiry in Sydney on Friday.
The skull was missing two teeth.

DNA testing has so far failed to find a match between the sailor, who is now buried in Geraldton, Western Australia, and surviving relatives of Sydney crew members.

The inquiry now moves to Perth on February 3, for three days of hearings.

More evidence about the unknown sailor is expected to be heard when the inquiry returns to Sydney in March.

[NASAAN101]

OK,
Why did she get so dang close to German raider Kormoran, from what i remember what i read she didn't even have her guns maned, right?
nikki

[herakles]

Nikki, this is the major question. But I'm not sure the board of enquiry will be able to answer this. Some suggestions as to why this happened have been made in this thread.

[BALTICSUBS]

Hi All,

not many people talk of this one but the Gemran signalman has a clue why she came so close so have a read of the issue in Tom Frame's book page 212. When Sydney was described by Detmers as still closing the range, the German signalman, while being interrogated, said Sydney asked HAVE YOU SUFFERED DAMAGE FROM CYCLONE, TYPHOON OR TEMPEST?

This seemed ridiculous and he said Detmer's also checked and this was correct. Now this question was asked when Sydney was further away, most likely between 5,000 to 7,000 yards off. The significance you may ask? The letters for this request are IK, which IS the middle two letters of the Straat Malakka's secret call sign, of which Detmer's could not have know. He was to reply with the outer 2 letter of the 4 letter code. So the concept of steaming up to Kormoron and then asking for this call sign when beside the raider, well make your own mind up. With the crew at action stations on Kormoron, there would be few who would have actually have known of this lead up to the lure.

Detmers possibily did hide something, and my belief is Sydney came close to board her, and it was this signal from Sydney in which he could not escape. Did he surrender, no evidence of that, but what if he obeyed every order that Sydney gave, and when close enough, opened fire, a war crime, no.

It is more than feasible that Burnett though he had the supply ship and not the raider, which could explain the non use of his radio. Get the supply ship, keep radio silence, and you might get the raider as well? No one will ever know this. The finding of the wrecks does fit the bill for the German story, which many who had studied the facts believed anyway. It is soley that issue of what made Burnett come in so close that is the only real controversy here surely. Once the battle began the German crew were all then priviy to the whole scene and they told what they saw, but prior to this, only a handful would have known.

Jsut my thoughts,

DB.

[smartd]

I thought this might be of interest since we have such a wealth of information about HMAS Sidney on this forum.

Wednesday, 4 February 2009
014/2008

MEDIA ALERT

CHRISTMAS ISLAND CAIRN DEDICATION FOR UNKNOWN SAILOR

What: The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, the Hon. Warren Snowdon MP, will be attending the dedication of a cairn on Christmas Island to mark the original burial site of the likely HMAS Sydney II sailor.

When: 5pm, Saturday, 7 February 2009.

Where: Original Burial Site of Unknown Sailor, Old European Cemetery,
Christmas Island.

Who: The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, the Hon. Warren Snowdon, MP.

Background:

The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, the Hon. Warren Snowdon, MP will be joined by Christmas Island residents, representatives of the Royal Australian Navy and Royal Australian Air Force for a cairn dedication service on Christmas Island to mark where the unknown sailor Iay buried for over 60 years.

HMAS Sydney II was tragically lost in November 1941 off Western Australia
following a fierce engagement with the German raider HSK Kormoran. It was
Australia's greatest Naval loss with the death of 645 men.

The remains of what is believed to be an HMAS Sydney II crew member were
recovered from Christmas Island by a Navy-led archeological team in October
2006, and re-interred in the Geraldton Cemetery on 19 November 2008.

[herakles]

This is all very nice but there's no clear evidence that the body is of a sailor from HMAS Sydney.

[herakles]

Here's the latest from the enquiry courtesy of The Age:

Ex-Sydney sailor lashes out at inquiry

Warwick Stanley

February 4, 2009 - 7:04PM
A former crewman of HMAS Sydney II has told the president of a commission of inquiry he is conducting a cover-up of the circumstances surrounding the warship's sinking.
Ean McDonald, 90, who was a signalman aboard the Sydney from 1939 to 1940, told Wednesday's Perth hearings of the inquiry into the sinking that he was being gagged from giving evidence.

Mr McDonald became embroiled in a terse exchange with commission president Terence Cole after being told he was not required to give an explanation of a diagram he presented to the hearing.

The diagram purported to show that Theodore Detmer, the captain of the German raider HSK Kormoran which sank the Sydney, had lied about the position where his ship went down off the West Australian coast following the November 19, 1941 battle.

"I would like to speak on the diagram, otherwise I am being gagged," Mr McDonald said after spending three hours answering questions on his submission to the inquiry.

Mr Cole, telling the inquiry that the diagram would be posted on the commission's website, adjourned the hearing to give Mr McDonald "a chance to consider your position".
Mr McDonald was questioned briefly on other matters upon the resumption before telling the hearing he did not wish to give further evidence.

The former lieutenant-commander presented numerous documents to the commission which he said were evidence that both the Australian navy and the crew of Kormoran had sought to "cover up" the details of the battle between the two ships.
These included verification of "fake" signals he had heard aboard HMAS Perth on November 26 to indicate HMAS Sydney was engaged in a battle.

He said genuine signals from HMAS Sydney had also been reported before the battle, indicating its captain was suspicious after sighting HSK Kormoran, which was disguised as a Dutch merchant ship.

Mr McDonald said the document in Captain Detmer's own book, and the subsequent discovery of the Kormoran wreck, showed he had been lying in his account of the battle.
Mr Cole and counsel assisting the commission, Commander Jack Rush questioned Mr McDonald's methods during his 50 years of investigating the Sydney sinking.
He agreed with Mr Cole that he often relied on statutory declarations with no supporting evidence, saying he only accepted statements from people he regarded as being of impeccable honesty.

Outside the hearing, Mr McDonald told reporters: "It's a whitewash, with all sorts of people being nice and very few people who are protagonists being able to voice their opinion."
He said he regretted he had not had a lawyer, preferably a top QC, to accompany him to the hearing.

"I was gagged. I had to battle through on my own as a criminal being cross-examined," he said.

"It's a real Sir Humphrey job," he said, in reference to the TV series Yes Minister.
Mr McDonald said the sinking of the Sydney had been covered up from the outset, when the Australian navy had been "shocked" at the loss of "Australian's favourite ship".
"They couldn't believe it," he said.

"There was suspicion of Japanese involvement which I've never been able to go along with, but there was suspicion.

"This was a couple of weeks only before Pearl Harbour.

"Had the Japanese been involved, Australia would have to declare war on Japan before Pearl Harbour was allowed to happen.

"That would not have been the aim of the hierarchy at British or American top level."
He said in 1945, naval intelligence chief Rupert Long had destroyed all naval records related to the Sydney incident.

"You know, the navy's a very tight club, the navy will protect its own," he said.

[magaoidh]

'Morning/evening Herk!,,

Have been reading the posts again, and very many thanks for all your info, I only hope that at the end of the 'enquiry' "Sydney's" Captain and crew are not made scapegoats!

Odd things happen in war and there is no doubt, to my way of thinking, that lady luck plays one hell of a part in it.There can be as much planning as you like but a "lucky event " can turn the situation. Who, for instance, would have thought that one shell apparantly piercing the space between the deck and barbette on HMS Hood would have had the effect that it did! Lady luck on the one side, and sheer bad luck on the other!

Ian
Sorry but your comments on the Hood are only partially true,a lucky shot, hmmm.
At the WWI battle of the Dogger Bank both German and English battle cruisers were at the point of "brewing up".The Germans had an investigation and improved armour plate in sus areas.The English under Churchill "covered up" in their investigation.Consequently three English battle cruisers exploded with near total casualties at the Battle of Jutland.The reason imop was fatal design flaws.The experts agree.
When Force H were sailing from Gib. to take on the Bismarck,the Admiralty issued an order that Renown(sister ship of Hood, laid down about 1919) was NOT to engage Bismarck!!! The Admiralty had finally got it right!
On the subject of no survivors from the Sydney,the inquiry so far has not dealt with this satisfactorily I believe.
Recently I saw contemporary photos of the Sydney with three Carley floats at the stern,as well as the normal complement!!!
The body in the Carley float on Christmas Island and a sandshoe which did not fit the dead man were almost certainly from the Sydney.Thats two at least who got off the ship!
I suspect that the real tragedy is the failure to respond quickly enough and search in the right area resulting in total loss of life.There were no doubt flotsam and jetsam from the ship when she went down as well as Carley floats and lifebelts.
Sydney being afloat for hours after the engagement and with an efficient and experienced crew would have taken steps to prepare to abandon ship etc.Search and rescue attempts took 3 to 4 days to mount I believe.
As far as scapegoats, there were attempts made to protect the captain from blame back in the 1940's.This I have read in Govt. docs.Perhaps this is where a lot of the conspiracy theories have emanated from.Public suspicion would have been aroused.
To me, the Captain made the decision and it was the wrong one in hindsight!!! If he had blown the Kormoran out of the water(which he should have) he would have got a medal!
The decision to turn to port and fire a torpedo at the Kormoran probably sealed the fate of the Sydney, a turn to starboard would have given a better chance of survival, if not continuing the battle.We will never know the answer to that one!
Geoff

[herakles]

Latest on the Sydney enquiry from the Age today:

A life raft from HMAS Sydney was not damaged by machine gun fire, challenging a theory that survivors were shot at while trying to escape, an inquiry has heard.

HMAS Sydney was lost with all 645 crew on November 19, 1941, following a battle with the disguised German merchant raider Kormoran off the West Australian coast.

The life raft, found north of the Sydney's wreck, was recovered by HMAS Heros on November 28, 1941.

A controversial theory surrounding the battle is that German soldiers shot survivors in life rafts with machine guns.

John Ashton, a former conservator at the Australian War Memorial who studied the life raft, known as a Carley float, said there were 339 holes in the raft's canvas.
The projectiles had hit the life raft at a shallow angle on the port side and not from a great height, he said.

"Our analysis ... could not prove that the fragments had come from the German munitions," Mr Ashton told Commissioner Terence Cole.

"Nothing recovered and removed from the Carley float has any resemblance to the type of machine gun bullets that (were) used during the naval action in November 1941."
Metallurgical expert Professor Dudley Creagh told the inquiry it was more likely the raft was damaged by flying shrapnel during the battle.

"This was a major catastrophic event," Prof Creagh said.

In written evidence to the inquiry, Prof Creagh said: "The fragments which were removed were most probably spallation products caused by the impact of projectiles nearby."

The inquiry continues in Sydney until Wednesday.

[herakles]

Here is today's update from The Age: (there is still no direct evidence that the body was a sailor from Sydney)

The unknown sailor believed to be from HMAS Sydney could have survived for days after being injured in World War II, an inquiry has been told.


HMAS Sydney was lost after a battle with the German raider Kormoran off the West Australian coast on November 19, 1941.


The sailor, whose body washed ashore on Christmas Island in a life raft in February 1942, is believed to be the only crew member found after the cruiser sank with the loss of all 645 onboard.


Professor Johan Duflou, a forensic pathologist, examined the skeletal remains of the unknown sailor after they were exhumed in 2006.


The commission of inquiry into the sinking of HMAS has previously heard the sailor had a piece of metal, believed to be a piece of shrapnel, embedded in his skull.


Prof Duflou told the inquiry on Wednesday it was unlikely the injury had resulted in major brain damage.


"It would certainly have pushed against the brain," he said.
"It is likely there would have been a degree of brain damage in that area. The projectile need not have killed the person, certainly if medical care was available.


"Today it would be very likely that the person would have survived."
Prof Duflou said in a report read to the inquiry that it was possible the sailor had survived for days with the injury.


"It is possible that the deceased may have survived a number of days if there was no significant brain damage.


"The metal object was unlikely to be a bullet, given there were no radiating fractures on the skull usually seen as a result of gunshot wounds," he said.
The inquiry before Commissioner Terence Cole is continuing.

[chaosfiend2005]

Hi guys

Ive just joined up to the forums, and wanted to say a big hello to everyone.

Im basically after any information on HMAS Sydney that I can get together, are there any collectors of artefacts from the Sydney?

The reason I ask is that I have number of naval telegrams, original hand drawn naval maps, photos and personal letters as well as original watercolours (all created by the ships captain).

I look forward to learning something about the articles I have, however I am somewhat in the dark with regard to these items, so any help or suggestions of whom to speak to regarding these items would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance

Terry

[MartinH-K]

Welcome aboard. If it's findable... here is where it will be.:)

[Blaydon]

If you can photograph/photocopy any of them we would be very pleased to see them Terry.

[chaosfiend2005]

Thanks for the responses, its very much appreciated.

Its no problem to show a selection of what I have. It may seem silly , however as I believe there should be some courtesy to those that lost loved ones Ill post some of the less personal items.

Secondly, if its ok when I post some of the items I may begin a thread over in the Australian Navy and Ship section (as I believe it may suit that section a little better).

Thanks in advance :)

Terry

[Blaydon]

I quite understand the need to tread carefully where artifacts are concerned and that is a wise thing as we have quite a few ANZAC members but what you can whilst being sensitive to those brave men and their families.

Yes certainly the Australian ships area would be the best for them.

[chaosfiend2005]

Hi I joined the forum yesterday whilst researching some artefacts I have come across over the past year or so. Comprising of maps, telegrams, newspapers, photographs and cuttings all of which relate to the HMAS Sydney.

All of the items are original and chart the life of Lieut/Com E.W.Thruston whilst aboard the Sydney (1939? - 1941).

TBH Im completely in the dark as to these items and their historical value, so Im asking for any comments, help with anyone whom may be intested in seeing the items and so on. Basically its a learning curve for me, so I ask for your patience.

Lastly, I believe there should be some courtesy to those that lost loved ones Ill post some of the less personal items. If there is anything you believe should be removed please inform me as ive tried my best to take the feelings of others into account (however as is always the case "I may not have covered every base" as it were).

Last year I was presented with a stack of what looked like cuttings. A rough overview of what the items were was given to myself.

Heres most of the items (just to show the variation/amount of different items)

Watercolours (by E.W. Thruston)



Newspapers relating to all of Sydneys encounters, as well as original photographs and cuttings



Original maps (and to the left corner you can see a lever file full of correspondance between Sydney and other ships as well as Mr Thrustons private correspondance between his wife and himself - and others)



I have included a few scans of a couple of less personal effects from the file which include

1) letter from the "Office of Commodore-in-Charge, Sydney", congratulating Mr Thruston on his promotion

2) A Naval message sent to Sydney from another ship

3) A copy of the original map (seen above), Headed "Action off Cape Spada, Crete, 19th July 1940" - H.M.A.S. Sydney track chart

4) The first page of a letter headed "To The Boardroon, H.M.A.S Sydney" - showing a dispatch transmitted by the Associated Press of America (re: sinking of the Bartolomeo Colleoni) - as shown above on map



I look forward to your thoughts and comments

Many thanks in advance

Terry

Moderator's Note: Links deleted - no longer available

[Kevin Denlay]

Very VERY interesting collection sir!

Thanks for posting.

[kookaburra]

First, welcome to the forum Terry and thanks for sharing the information on the memorabilia collection of Commander Edmund Wybergh Thruston, RN, that has come into your possession.

You place a question mark in your post on the year he joined HMAS Sydney.

Here is a link to a newspaper article held at the National Library of Australia that states Commander Thruston came to Australia on exchange duty from the RN in 1935, joined HMAS Sydney in 1937 and was promoted to the rank of Commander in June 1941, that is about five months before her loss in the action with the raider Kormoran.

http://ndpbeta.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2588834

I guess you may already have this photo of Cmdr Thruston (below), Australian War Memorial No 7885, published in Barbara Winter's book HMAS Sydney: Fact Fantasy and Fraud, Boolarang Publications, Brisbane
(1984), but I'm placing it here in the event you don't have it (click on the pic to enlarge).

Winter states that Cmdr Thruston would have been at the auxiliary conning position at the time of the action with Kormoran (and, if that is correct, would presumably have been in charge of the ship after the first minute or so of the action, as all on the bridge were killed).

I sense that the items in the collection may amount to something of historical interest here in Australia, where Sydney was one of if not the most famous RAN ship in WW11, particularly in view of her discovery off the WA coast last year, and the present official enquiry going on into her loss (see threads in this section of the forums).
The enquiry is the latest of many over the years, and Sydney has been the subject of more than 20 books.

Like you - but particularly not seeing the full collection - I have no idea of its value. I have the impression that you would like to make it available for viewing to anyone who may have an interest.

That really means in Australia, I think - and I'm assuming you're in the U.K.

I am wondering if an initial contact with a Navy defence attache at Australia House might assist you in gaining some assessment, and advice on what may be done.

Just off the top of my head, my first instinct is that the organisations in Australia that may be interested in knowing about the collection, and possibly for loan or acquisition and display, are The Australian War Memorial, Canberra, the National Library of Australia, or the Returned Services League, which does hold large collections of memorabilia, as do its individual clubs and branches, which display them in their premises.

The other obvious groups that might be interested are the HMAS Sydney Associations - I don't know much about them, there seems to be branches in each State. Here is the NSW (Sydney) branch website:

http://www.hmassydney-escortsnsw.org/

Finally there is the Finding Sydney Foundation, the group that finally organised the successful search for the ship site. I have the impression, although I am not sure of this, that they have acquired some kind of rights over a lot of HMAS Sydney photographs and other material. I don't know much about them, there were so many search groups for Sydney formed and went over the years.

Anyway, here is the Foundation's website.

http://www.findingsydney.com/


Well, thanks again for letting us know, and good luck with your endeavours. I assume you may have already made some contact/enquiries regarding the Thruston family - or perhaps that's where the collection first came from.

Anyway, all just a first reaction off the top of my head, but I hope this is in some way helpful.

[magaoidh]

I have read that the Christmas Island life raft was examined and was of identical or similiar construction to RAN liferafts.Lysaght branded if memory serves me right!!!

[kookaburra]

Almost 68 years later, I continue to find the detailed accounts and simulation of the battle coming out of the inquiry so desolating. A close-up pic below of crewmen of HMAS Sydney...

[Linton]

The report of the HMAS SYDNEY Commission of Inquiry conducted by The Hon Terrance Cole has been published. The link to the report is http://www.defence.gov.au/sydneyii/FinalReport/index.html

It is well laid out and well worth reading if you are interested in the action. It examines the various theories as to what happened. It bears out the German account of the action with considerable analysis the wreck of the HMAS SYDNEY.

[Jackaroo]

Still blames the Captian of Sydney for his error of judgement.

Cheers
Jack a roo :cool:

[mabrown]

[QUOTE=Jackaroo;73570]Still blames the Captian of Sydney for his error of judgement.

Cheers
Jack a roo :cool:QUOTE]

Unfortunately, on the evidence it is hard to see how the report could conclude anything else. There is German evidence that Sydney made errors which contributed to her own loss.

If we can accept that Burnett did indeed act as the Germans have said then the question becomes why? Personally I wonder if Burnett intended to board. This section from the inquiry caught my eye:

"On 27 February 1941 LEANDER was patrolling off the Maldive Islands when she sighted a vessel that aroused suspicion because she resembled the Ramb Class of Italian banana freighters and had a gun on her forecastle. At 10,000 yards, LEANDER ordered the vessel to hoist her colours: she hoisted the Red Ensign. The vessel was then ordered to hoist her signal letters. After a five-minute delay the letters were hoisted, but they did not appear in the books of reference. LEANDER made the secret challenge; there was no reply. CAPT Bevan decided to board and by flag and signals ordered the ship to stop. She did not reply but hoisted the Italian flag and started training her guns.

LEANDER then started to train her guns on the stranger. LEANDER was ‘just before the stranger’s beam’ and about 3,000 yards distant. The stranger opened fire but was short. LEANDER fired five rapid salvos, hitting the stranger and causing fires. The Italian ship had fired only three rounds per gun, her crew abandoned ship, and later she exploded and sank.

CAPT Bevan placed LEANDER in a position abeam the raider, 3,000 yards away. He did as CAPT Burnett did. The Admiralty commented in 1942 that LEANDER ‘was perhaps fortunate to escape the fate which befell the Australian cruiser Sydney’."

[Jackaroo]

HMAS Sydney vision given to War Memorial
By Penny McLintock

Posted Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:30pm AEDT
Updated Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:25pm AEDT

Video and photographs showing the wrecks of HMAS Sydney and HSK Kormoran have been donated to the Australian War Memorial (AWM) in Canberra.

The Sydney was sunk by the German ship Kormoran in November 1941. All 645 crew members were lost at sea.

The location of the ship had been a mystery until the Finding Sydney Foundation (FSF) discovered the wreck off the Western Australian coast in March last year.

More than 1,400 photographs and 50 hours of video were taken during the investigation of the wrecks.

Now the Finding Sydney Foundation and search director David Mearns have handed the vision and associated copyright to the AWM.

FSF chairman Ted Graham says they are proud to give the records to the Australian public.

"The imagery is an important historical record of the discovery of the ships and of the final fate of HMAS Sydney and HSK Kormoran and forms the only objective evidence of the result of the battle between the two ships," he said.

Mr Graham says it is important the public has access to the records.

"We've had many many requests to make the imagery available but we have not had the resources or the money or the manpower to make it available - it's a very large collection," he said.

"The main thing is that the integrity of the collection be preserved and the collection be kept in one spot."

Mr Graham says the role of the Finding Sydney Foundation is coming to an end.

"We're a group of five un-paid volunteers and we set ourselves a goal which was to find HMAS Sydney and we also found the German Kormoran, and to honour the men," he said.

"Our sole purpose was to bring a measure of peace to the families of the men that were lost.

"We've finished the work we established ourselves to do and our aim is to close ourselves down as an Australian not-for-profit company on the 30th of June 2010."

AWM assistant director Nola Anderson says the donation is a great addition to the Memorial's collection.

"The video and photographs of the HMAS Sydney and HSK Kormoran are an important part of Australia's naval military history," she said.

"The Memorial is delighted to accept this donation, so that it can be conserved and be available for future generations at the Memorial."

[culverin]

What i find so sad is the fact everyone doubted the German tales from the outset. In fact as with most stories, WHY would you believe what your foe tells you. Simple, when he survives and you DON'T.
In actual fact, the fate that befell the SYDNEY was so predictable that a blind man would have spotted it.
A near identical incident almost befell HMS NEPTUNE some time before. Did anyone pay attention...NO. Did anybody learn anything...NO. Did anybody lose their lives...NO.
YES actually, every soul on the SYDNEY did. R.I.P.
She remains to this day the largest RAN / RN ship to be lost with her ENTIRE complement, during the 20th Century.
And at the end of the day did things turn out as predicted...YES.

[SheppeyMiss]

I have recently come to read this thread about HMAS SYDNEY. I wondered if the fitting end to the story ought to be these links:

Finding Sydney (http://www.findingsydney.com/default.asp)


HMAS Sydney II Virtual Memorial (http://www.sydneymemorial.com/registry.asp?CODE=A)

May they rest in peace.

Missy

[Rob Stuart]

Culveron,

In your post of about 18 months ago you remark that "A near identical incident almost befell HMS NEPTUNE some time before." Her service history at http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-06CL-Neptune.htm shows no encounter with any German raider, so could you elaborate and explain what incident you referred to?


Thanks,

Rob

[kookaburra]

Hmmm. There was the incident in which Captain R.M. Bevan took LEANDER to within 3000 yards of the raider RAMB 1 on Feb 27, 1941, was steaming parallel, and taken by surprise when she raised the Italian Flag and opened fire. Fortunately for LEANDER her opponent's aim was not so good as KORMORAN'S , but Barabara Winter's book says they got a bad scare [p60].

I guess this one is fairly well known now. Might even be repeating myself here - sorry, if so.