Comments on: Out of the depths http://airminded.org/2008/03/17/out-of-the-depths/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=out-of-the-depths Airpower and British society, 1908-1941 Fri, 25 May 2012 11:53:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2008/03/17/out-of-the-depths/comment-page-1/#comment-160918 Brett Holman Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:57:25 +0000 http://airminded.org/2008/03/17/out-of-the-depths/#comment-160918 You may be right, and they may have survived for days, but I disagree that yours is the only conclusion. We just don't know. The survival of shipwreck victims is so contingent, there are so many factors which can sway the odds one way or the other. Even just naively: <em>Hood</em> had 1418 crew, <em>Sydney</em> 645. If <em>Sydney</em> had been in <em>Hood</em>'s place, it would have had 1 survivor (rounding down), which is pretty much 0 anyway. And yes, <em>Hood</em> had plenty of factors against it, but it also had some going for it: its position was known, the fact that it had engaged in combat with a powerful enemy ship was known, there were other British ships in the area. <em>Sydney</em> was running alone and under radio silence, was not expected to encounter an enemy, and, most importantly, would not be overdue for some days. The Navy began <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/sydney/Sydch_6.htm" rel="nofollow">a full-scale search</a> for <em>Sydney</em> as soon as it became aware of the battle, i.e. the same day it received news of <em>Kormoran</em> survivors being found. Unfortunately that was already 5 days after the battle. You may be right, and they may have survived for days, but I disagree that yours is the only conclusion. We just don't know. The survival of shipwreck victims is so contingent, there are so many factors which can sway the odds one way or the other. Even just naively: Hood had 1418 crew, Sydney 645. If Sydney had been in Hood's place, it would have had 1 survivor (rounding down), which is pretty much 0 anyway. And yes, Hood had plenty of factors against it, but it also had some going for it: its position was known, the fact that it had engaged in combat with a powerful enemy ship was known, there were other British ships in the area. Sydney was running alone and under radio silence, was not expected to encounter an enemy, and, most importantly, would not be overdue for some days. The Navy began a full-scale search for Sydney as soon as it became aware of the battle, i.e. the same day it received news of Kormoran survivors being found. Unfortunately that was already 5 days after the battle.

]]> By: John http://airminded.org/2008/03/17/out-of-the-depths/comment-page-1/#comment-160836 John Thu, 03 Nov 2011 18:08:24 +0000 http://airminded.org/2008/03/17/out-of-the-depths/#comment-160836 By far the most puzzling part of this event was the fact that there were no survivors. All of the explanations I have read such as bow falling off, sinking quickly, explosions etc do not even go close to being significant enough to explain the death of ALL 645 crew. HMS Hood was completely engulfed in a massive explosion in freezing waters, was blown in half, sank in two minutes and there still 3 survivors. The Sydney by comparison had no significant explosion and was afloat for hours in relatively warm waters. There is only one conclusion... there were survivors, probably hundreds and they sat in the water for a number of days without rescue. Why they weren't rescued remains unclear. Was the Australian naval command in disbelief and refusing to send out search parties? God knows... but there I am certain there were survivors and their final hours must have been pretty horrific. Read up on the fate of the USS Indianapolis's crew for an idea of what it might have been like. By far the most puzzling part of this event was the fact that there were no survivors. All of the explanations I have read such as bow falling off, sinking quickly, explosions etc do not even go close to being significant enough to explain the death of ALL 645 crew. HMS Hood was completely engulfed in a massive explosion in freezing waters, was blown in half, sank in two minutes and there still 3 survivors. The Sydney by comparison had no significant explosion and was afloat for hours in relatively warm waters. There is only one conclusion... there were survivors, probably hundreds and they sat in the water for a number of days without rescue. Why they weren't rescued remains unclear. Was the Australian naval command in disbelief and refusing to send out search parties? God knows... but there I am certain there were survivors and their final hours must have been pretty horrific. Read up on the fate of the USS Indianapolis's crew for an idea of what it might have been like.

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2008/03/17/out-of-the-depths/comment-page-1/#comment-157160 Brett Holman Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:50:17 +0000 http://airminded.org/2008/03/17/out-of-the-depths/#comment-157160 Nice to see you again, Joe. That's a pretty grim picture; after the initial broadside, it doesn't seem like <em>Sydney</em> had much of a chance. I suppose it's a testament to its crew that it manage to do enough damage to <em>Kormoran</em> to set it on fire and force it to scuttle. Nice to see you again, Joe. That's a pretty grim picture; after the initial broadside, it doesn't seem like Sydney had much of a chance. I suppose it's a testament to its crew that it manage to do enough damage to Kormoran to set it on fire and force it to scuttle.

]]> By: Joe Hutchinson http://airminded.org/2008/03/17/out-of-the-depths/comment-page-1/#comment-157092 Joe Hutchinson Sun, 13 Feb 2011 17:48:44 +0000 http://airminded.org/2008/03/17/out-of-the-depths/#comment-157092 No, you're quite right: HMAS. I'd seen it for years off and on. Apologies. I've just gone over the wreck data and pics of both ships. It looks like the 4" dual purpose did get into action (but for how long?). "A" turret had the deck folded up over it's barrels and "B" was taken out in the 1st minute. The after turrets appear to have had power failure or damage as they seemed to be on the wrong broadside for final reply. Makes me want to see if all the watertight bulkhead doors are closed. Power failure would've made that a problem if that detail was forgotten. Ship would've filled inexorably scooping up headwater then. Also appears that Sidney's trying to push a half severed bow though the water for a few minutes before it falls off. If the Captain saw this, it's possible to consider using full astern. Would've put his "X" and "Y" in the battle just as needed. However, if the bridge and personnel is gone, kinda moot. Perhaps this is the perfect "no win" scenario. Even a battleship could loose if more than one torpedo hits. No, you're quite right: HMAS. I'd seen it for years off and on. Apologies. I've just gone over the wreck data and pics of both ships. It looks like the 4" dual purpose did get into action (but for how long?). "A" turret had the deck folded up over it's barrels and "B" was taken out in the 1st minute. The after turrets appear to have had power failure or damage as they seemed to be on the wrong broadside for final reply. Makes me want to see if all the watertight bulkhead doors are closed. Power failure would've made that a problem if that detail was forgotten. Ship would've filled inexorably scooping up headwater then. Also appears that Sidney's trying to push a half severed bow though the water for a few minutes before it falls off. If the Captain saw this, it's possible to consider using full astern. Would've put his "X" and "Y" in the battle just as needed. However, if the bridge and personnel is gone, kinda moot. Perhaps this is the perfect "no win" scenario. Even a battleship could loose if more than one torpedo hits.

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2008/03/17/out-of-the-depths/comment-page-1/#comment-110042 Brett Holman Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:43:02 +0000 http://airminded.org/2008/03/17/out-of-the-depths/#comment-110042 An update: an <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/12/2653594.htm" rel="nofollow">official inquiry</a> (the actual report is <a href="http://www.defence.gov.au/sydneyii/FinalReport/index.html rel="nofollow">here</a>) has dismissed the conspiracy theories and blamed the captain of the <em>Sydney</em> for approaching the <em>Kormoran</em> too closely and too unwarily. I.e., pretty much as I said in the post. An update: an official inquiry (the actual report is here) has dismissed the conspiracy theories and blamed the captain of the Sydney for approaching the Kormoran too closely and too unwarily. I.e., pretty much as I said in the post.

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2008/03/17/out-of-the-depths/comment-page-1/#comment-77781 Brett Holman Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:14:14 +0000 http://airminded.org/2008/03/17/out-of-the-depths/#comment-77781 I presume the documentary will be out on (region 4) DVD at some point, but I can't see any evidence of that yet. It will be worth getting if you're at all interested, as it sounds like you are! I can't remember if there was any sort of composite image similar to what you're looking for -- I don't think so, probably just some computer graphics of how the ships sank and settled on the bottom. Maybe one will be done after they've explored the wrecks more thoroughly. Yes, that scenario does sound familiar, and again it's why conspiracy theories seem unnecessary. Surprise and the sudden blinding of <em>Sydney</em> seems sufficient to explain the result, especially given their relatively equal armaments. Just a pedantic point: the correct prefix for a RAN ship's name is HMAS, 'His Majesty's Australian Ship' (or 'Her', as it is presently). Thus HMAS <em>Sydney</em>. I presume the documentary will be out on (region 4) DVD at some point, but I can't see any evidence of that yet. It will be worth getting if you're at all interested, as it sounds like you are! I can't remember if there was any sort of composite image similar to what you're looking for -- I don't think so, probably just some computer graphics of how the ships sank and settled on the bottom. Maybe one will be done after they've explored the wrecks more thoroughly.

Yes, that scenario does sound familiar, and again it's why conspiracy theories seem unnecessary. Surprise and the sudden blinding of Sydney seems sufficient to explain the result, especially given their relatively equal armaments.

Just a pedantic point: the correct prefix for a RAN ship's name is HMAS, 'His Majesty's Australian Ship' (or 'Her', as it is presently). Thus HMAS Sydney.

]]> By: Joe Hutchinson http://airminded.org/2008/03/17/out-of-the-depths/comment-page-1/#comment-77503 Joe Hutchinson Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:41:16 +0000 http://airminded.org/2008/03/17/out-of-the-depths/#comment-77503 Unhappily I'm not allowed to see the video "Finding Sydney" as I live in the US (copyright restrictions). Anyone have ideas? I would like to see a photo composite of the whole of RANS Sydney (or artists rendering) as has been done for other sunken vessals. I'm a loooonnnggg time naval history buff and the great sea raiders (any nation and era) are on my short list. The Pacific below ~20 north in general seems a hot spot going back to the era of the Spanish Empire (and who can say what went on before then). After looking up SMS Emden and SMS Seeadler (WW1), the battle between RANS Sydney and KMS Cormoran wasn't hard to find. Not discussed here yet: there are some who feel that Cormoran lured Sydney "beyond common war curtousy" as one local to me put it. Meaning Capt. Detmers' didn't run up the war flag moments before firing. I would generally say no to this as German surface officers of any recent era have about the best rep possible for following the conventions of the sea in this regard. One can only realistically say that the Cormoran's disguise must have been impressive and perhaps only exceeded by Count von Luckner's Seeadler. My sincere regards to all who still have a tender spot about the outcome. I also have played a minitures wargame over this scenario a while ago (1st Gulf War) we called the Q-ship scenario. We supposed the Straits of Hormuz as a location. An American frigate (I think it was the USS TAYLOR, FFG 50, 1990's weapons) escorting a line of loaded tankers going east and a Chinese built and Arab crewed ship on the return west as the adversary, mounting 2 torps and 4 x 6" guns a side plus big RPG's and 4 x 20 mm AA (all single mounts). It was in a line of other empty ships as cover and, as the seas are narrow and Iran close, the lines a sea mile apart. We gave the escort a helicoptor in the air and the Arabs first draw with a dozen RPG zodiacs as a diversion from the coast of Iran. One of the Taylor's tankers was allowed a pair of 50 cals as she was used in the Malacca Straits run or something (Ausy Captain?) The results weren't pretty. 3 tankers holed, 2 tankers beached and burning. The escort gets beatup at 60% damage level (one torp hit and 25 x 6" rounds and a nasty spray of 20 mm). All the terrorists are krispy kritters and their ship a smoking hole in the ocean eventually. (The F-14 air cover was dice rolled as 20 minutes response but not needed). The key was the concentration on the Taylor's control and detection centers. Sound familiar? Unhappily I'm not allowed to see the video "Finding Sydney" as I live in the US (copyright restrictions). Anyone have ideas? I would like to see a photo composite of the whole of RANS Sydney (or artists rendering) as has been done for other sunken vessals.

I'm a loooonnnggg time naval history buff and the great sea raiders (any nation and era) are on my short list. The Pacific below ~20 north in general seems a hot spot going back to the era of the Spanish Empire (and who can say what went on before then). After looking up SMS Emden and SMS Seeadler (WW1), the battle between RANS Sydney and KMS Cormoran wasn't hard to find.

Not discussed here yet: there are some who feel that Cormoran lured Sydney "beyond common war curtousy" as one local to me put it. Meaning Capt. Detmers' didn't run up the war flag moments before firing. I would generally say no to this as German surface officers of any recent era have about the best rep possible for following the conventions of the sea in this regard. One can only realistically say that the Cormoran's disguise must have been impressive and perhaps only exceeded by Count von Luckner's Seeadler. My sincere regards to all who still have a tender spot about the outcome.

I also have played a minitures wargame over this scenario a while ago (1st Gulf War) we called the Q-ship scenario. We supposed the Straits of Hormuz as a location. An American frigate (I think it was the USS TAYLOR, FFG 50, 1990's weapons) escorting a line of loaded tankers going east and a Chinese built and Arab crewed ship on the return west as the adversary, mounting 2 torps and 4 x 6" guns a side plus big RPG's and 4 x 20 mm AA (all single mounts). It was in a line of other empty ships as cover and, as the seas are narrow and Iran close, the lines a sea mile apart. We gave the escort a helicoptor in the air and the Arabs first draw with a dozen RPG zodiacs as a diversion from the coast of Iran. One of the Taylor's tankers was allowed a pair of 50 cals as she was used in the Malacca Straits run or something (Ausy Captain?) The results weren't pretty. 3 tankers holed, 2 tankers beached and burning. The escort gets beatup at 60% damage level (one torp hit and 25 x 6" rounds and a nasty spray of 20 mm). All the terrorists are krispy kritters and their ship a smoking hole in the ocean eventually. (The F-14 air cover was dice rolled as 20 minutes response but not needed). The key was the concentration on the Taylor's control and detection centers. Sound familiar?

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2008/03/17/out-of-the-depths/comment-page-1/#comment-72935 Brett Holman Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:52:50 +0000 http://airminded.org/2008/03/17/out-of-the-depths/#comment-72935 There was an excellent documentary on the ABC tonight, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/hmassydney/" rel="nofollow"><em>Finding Sydney</em></a><a>. Lots of fascinating footage of both the wrecks -- some pictures are up at the </a><a href="http://www.findingsydney.com/" rel="nofollow">Finding Sydney Foundation</a> website. The conspiracy angle was mentioned but not overemphasised (to my relief), and there were also some moving stories from the families of the <em>Sydney's</em> crew. Most moving of all was that of a woman who married a sailor from <em>Sydney</em> just before he left on its final cruise. He left at 2am on their wedding night, and she never saw him again. The investigation of the wreck seems to give no support to the conspiracy theories. A majority of the lifeboats were found with the wreck, so the crew presumably weren't machine-gunned by the Germans (or the Japanese). It appears that <em>Kormoran's</em> torpedo hit the <em>Sydney's</em> bow, which literally fell off as the <em>Sydney</em> drifted (or possibly steamed) away. It therefore sunk very suddenly, which probably explains why there were no survivors. And they showed Detmers' dictionary, the source of the secret account I mentioned in the previous comment (certain words were marked with pencil dots, which apparently adds up to a coherent account of the battle). I would have liked to learn more about this -- apparently it was one of the wreckhunters who discovered this, so it's unclear if any historians have been near it. Anyway, it wasn't the sole clue for the searchers, as they were modifying the search area right up to the day they sailed based on information about currents and so on. There was an excellent documentary on the ABC tonight, Finding Sydney. Lots of fascinating footage of both the wrecks -- some pictures are up at the Finding Sydney Foundation website. The conspiracy angle was mentioned but not overemphasised (to my relief), and there were also some moving stories from the families of the Sydney's crew. Most moving of all was that of a woman who married a sailor from Sydney just before he left on its final cruise. He left at 2am on their wedding night, and she never saw him again.

The investigation of the wreck seems to give no support to the conspiracy theories. A majority of the lifeboats were found with the wreck, so the crew presumably weren't machine-gunned by the Germans (or the Japanese). It appears that Kormoran's torpedo hit the Sydney's bow, which literally fell off as the Sydney drifted (or possibly steamed) away. It therefore sunk very suddenly, which probably explains why there were no survivors.

And they showed Detmers' dictionary, the source of the secret account I mentioned in the previous comment (certain words were marked with pencil dots, which apparently adds up to a coherent account of the battle). I would have liked to learn more about this -- apparently it was one of the wreckhunters who discovered this, so it's unclear if any historians have been near it. Anyway, it wasn't the sole clue for the searchers, as they were modifying the search area right up to the day they sailed based on information about currents and so on.

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2008/03/17/out-of-the-depths/comment-page-1/#comment-72490 Brett Holman Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:10:32 +0000 http://airminded.org/2008/03/17/out-of-the-depths/#comment-72490 No worries, deni. Stuartie's right, according to <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AUSTRALIA_WRECK_MYSTERY?SITE=TXPLA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT" rel="nofollow">this report</a>, to find the wrecks the searchers used an apparently secret account of the battle written by Detmers while a POW (though it also claims his first name was 'Theodora'!). Also, the damage to the <em>Sydney</em> appears to corroborate the accounts of the Germans, as far as it goes. No worries, deni. Stuartie's right, according to this report, to find the wrecks the searchers used an apparently secret account of the battle written by Detmers while a POW (though it also claims his first name was 'Theodora'!). Also, the damage to the Sydney appears to corroborate the accounts of the Germans, as far as it goes.

]]> By: deni http://airminded.org/2008/03/17/out-of-the-depths/comment-page-1/#comment-72452 deni Sat, 05 Apr 2008 05:30:22 +0000 http://airminded.org/2008/03/17/out-of-the-depths/#comment-72452 all interesting replies. I am just passing on what the the old fella told me about his own experiences with the crew and captain and what his contemporaries thought. He actually said that he felt the German prisoners had more freedom than the Australian guards. The same man i am talking about was also in New Guinea and some of the horror stories that i have heard from him often don't appear in official records too. My instinct tells me that there is more to the whole story of the Sydney than we have yet discovered...but thats just instinct i guess. Thanks for filling me in on the official details though and will keep track of events on this forum. all interesting replies. I am just passing on what the the old fella told me about his own experiences with the crew and captain and what his contemporaries thought. He actually said that he felt the German prisoners had more freedom than the Australian guards. The same man i am talking about was also in New Guinea and some of the horror stories that i have heard from him often don't appear in official records too. My instinct tells me that there is more to the whole story of the Sydney than we have yet discovered...but thats just instinct i guess. Thanks for filling me in on the official details though and will keep track of events on this forum.

]]>