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

[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

[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.

[Kevin Denlay]

Here is the article in full.

K

[herakles]

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

[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