Re:HK Kormoran + HMAS Sydney
Jeffrey Hamilton
read and has lot's of info regarding HK Korman.
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/hilfskreuzer/kormoran.html
cheers....Jeff
Matt Wiser
Eugene Griessel
>"Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>>
>The more info on any of the raiders, the better.
I have a tattered paperback, long missing both covers, in German about
the raiders which I refer to when I can find it! Has photos of most
of them along with descriptions.
Eugene L Griessel
Guy Fawkes - the last man to enter Parliament with honest
intentions.
- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
Jeffrey Hamilton
"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
news:47df476...@news.uunet.co.za...
She was a good looking big ship wasn't she? She also packed a serious wallop
with those 6 x 155mm guns as her primary arnaments, with that much firepower
and being allowed to get off the broadside, it's not too difficult to
understand the damage she must have inflicted.
Obviously the captain of HMAS Sydney got sucked in a serious and fatal way.
Not a good time to have a brain cramp!
cheers.....Jeff
Matt Wiser
>
You're forgetting the TTs, too. 6 21" TTs, two of them submerged. If the sonar scans are
correct, and there's no reason so far to doubt them, the one fish that hit Sydney seriously
weakened the bow, and ultimately that failed, and thus the cruiser went to the bottom. The
ROV work will be interesting to see. One of the cruisers at Savo Island, U.S.S. Quincy, that
Bob Ballard found was also missing her bow, though it's easy to lose a bow if you take a
Long Lance (or two, or three...).
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Eugene Griessel) wrote:
> I have a tattered paperback, long missing both covers, in German about
> the raiders which I refer to when I can find it!
There was an English version whose title I have already posted.
Unfortunately while I can find it, it is tending to fall apart. Cheap
paperbacks tend not to last well for twenty years plus.
Ken Young
Keith Willshaw
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:s7-dnXXVye1ma33a...@pipex.net...
I have a copy of David Woodward's book ' The Secret Raiders' which
I picked up for 50p at a National Trust second hand bookshop
for 50 pence.
In it the Kormoran survivors describe how the Sydney's spotter
plane which had been swung out ready for launch was moved back
and that only 50 percent of the gun positions seemed to be manned.
They claimed to have uncovered the guns, hauled down the Dutch flag
and run up a German flag in just 6 seconds and reported that the
second salvo scored direct hits on the Bridge and directors which
would have made effective resistance very difficult at such close
quarters. Both forward turrets were out of action leaving only the
aft turrets firing under local control.
HMAS Sydney turned to fire 4 torpedoes all of which missed
but in doing so took further damage ehich seemed to jam the
after turrets which were seen to be pointing on the disengaged
side. Kormoran fired over 500 rounds and when last seen Sydney
was seen to have heavy fires on board and was proceeding
very slowly. The weather the night after the sinking was apparently
quite bad and the groups of German survivors were split up
Keith
William Black
"Keith Willshaw" <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fru0sb$flk$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> They claimed to have uncovered the guns, hauled down the Dutch flag
> and run up a German flag in just 6 seconds
That's incredibly fast.
Someone standing by the staff would have been a dead giveaway as well.
Can you say 'piracy'?
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Eugene Griessel
>
>"Keith Willshaw" <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:fru0sb$flk$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>
>
>> They claimed to have uncovered the guns, hauled down the Dutch flag
>> and run up a German flag in just 6 seconds
>
>That's incredibly fast.
>
>Someone standing by the staff would have been a dead giveaway as well.
>
>Can you say 'piracy'?
>
I've often wondered about the German Raiders. However I suppose the
British had some qualms about enforcing "clearly identifiable as
military/combatant" type conventions after the Q-ships in WW1.
I would have thought that a disguised vessel which refuses to identify
itself as combatant in the face of the enemy until in an advantageous
position is a pirate and it's crew treatable as such.
Eugene L Griessel
Peoples and governments have never learned anything from history, or
acted on principles deducible from it.
- G.W.F. Hegel
TMOliver
"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Keith Willshaw" <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:fru0sb$flk$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>
>>
>>> They claimed to have uncovered the guns, hauled down the Dutch flag
>>> and run up a German flag in just 6 seconds
>>
>>That's incredibly fast.
>>
>>Someone standing by the staff would have been a dead giveaway as well.
>>
>>Can you say 'piracy'?
>>
>
> I've often wondered about the German Raiders. However I suppose the
> British had some qualms about enforcing "clearly identifiable as
> military/combatant" type conventions after the Q-ships in WW1.
> I would have thought that a disguised vessel which refuses to identify
> itself as combatant in the face of the enemy until in an advantageous
> position is a pirate and it's crew treatable as such.
>
While Viknce may have an opinion, I seem to recall that some early
international agreements plus a history of "Operational Precedents"
recognize that warships and "private" ships might utilize foreign flags and
disguises as legitimate "ruse de guerre" (SP?). Certainly, given the number
of auxiliary vessels, many of civilian origin, in every belligerent navy
during WWII, you could hardly depend upon a "profile" to establish status.
Ad in vessels such as the RN's "merchant cruisers", clearly combatants, but
easily mistook for merchant ships, and then all those merchant ships which
acquired gun tubs, guns, and both civilian and naval crews to man them...
What's a "Raider"?
TMO
Vince
In time of war false flag operations are fully acceptable
and 6 seconds to shift flags and open fire would not be impossible
A warship in time of war always has to be on its guard when it stops an
unknown ship
Paragraph 43 of the Field Manual published by the War Department,
United States Army, on 1st October, 1940, under the title "Rules of Land
Warfare", says:
"National flags, insignias and uniforms as a ruse - in practice
it has been authorized to make use of these as a ruse. The foregoing
rule (Article 23 of the Annex of the IVth Hague Convention), does not
prohibit such use, but does prohibit their improper use. It is certainly
forbidden to make use of them during a combat. Before opening fire upon
the enemy, they must be discarded".
Also The American Soldiers' Handbook, was quoted by Defense Counsel
and says:
"The use of the enemy flag, insignia, and uniform is permitted
under some circumstances. They are not to be used during actual
fighting, and if used in order to approach the enemy without drawing
fire, should be thrown away or removed as soon as fighting begins".
The outcome of the trial has been codified in the 1977 Protocol
Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Protocol I):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
Vince
Eugene Griessel
Wasn't there some sort of convention that if you stuck a gun on the
poop deck it was "defensive" as opposed to one elsewhere which would
have made it "offensive"?
Eugene L Griessel
Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser
than one man. How's that again? I missed something.
Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than
a million men. Let's play that one over again, too. Who decides?
William Black
"Vince" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:3rKdnf25QPVrMH_a...@comcast.com...
You'd have thought they'd have noticed the flag coming down a bit quicker.
And six seconds isn't aterribly long time for doing this trick.
I don't know if you've ever hoisted a flag when at sea?
I've seen it done. It's a trivial task, but it takes time.
It isn't a pocket handkerchief...
Vince
raced sailboats and hoisted flags
>
> I've seen it done. It's a trivial task, but it takes time.
>
> It isn't a pocket handkerchief...
>
Standard practice was to counterweight the flag halyard
you attach one the false flag to make sure it drops and other to the
lifting halyard to get the colors up quickly
Vince
george
wrote:
> You'd have thought they'd have noticed the flag coming down a bit quicker.
>
> And six seconds isn't aterribly long time for doing this trick.
>
> I don't know if you've ever hoisted a flag when at sea?
>
> I've seen it done. It's a trivial task, but it takes time.
>
> It isn't a pocket handkerchief...
>
Have it ready rigged, pull the lanyard and hey presto.
Any bunting tosser could rig it in no time flat.
Then drop the other flag...
William Black
"george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
news:acbe58bb-18da-4e16...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Would a deck hand be hanging around the place where the flag is to no very
good purpose not sort of give the game away?
I mean, what's he doing? Standing there whistling and trying to look
inconspicuous?
Eugene Griessel
>
>"george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>news:acbe58bb-18da-4e16...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 21, 7:22 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You'd have thought they'd have noticed the flag coming down a bit
>>> quicker.
>>>
>>> And six seconds isn't aterribly long time for doing this trick.
>>>
>>> I don't know if you've ever hoisted a flag when at sea?
>>>
>>> I've seen it done. It's a trivial task, but it takes time.
>>>
>>> It isn't a pocket handkerchief...
>>>
>> Have it ready rigged, pull the lanyard and hey presto.
>> Any bunting tosser could rig it in no time flat.
>> Then drop the other flag...
>
>Would a deck hand be hanging around the place where the flag is to no very
>good purpose not sort of give the game away?
>
>I mean, what's he doing? Standing there whistling and trying to look
>inconspicuous?
>
He could be schcrubbing ze decks in der vicinity unt looking
inconspicuous - just ready to leap to the halyards und break out ze
schwastika ven required!
Eugene L Griessel
Don't question authority..... It hasn't got a clue!!!!!
William Black
"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>>news:acbe58bb-18da-4e16...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Mar 21, 7:22 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You'd have thought they'd have noticed the flag coming down a bit
>>>> quicker.
>>>>
>>>> And six seconds isn't aterribly long time for doing this trick.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if you've ever hoisted a flag when at sea?
>>>>
>>>> I've seen it done. It's a trivial task, but it takes time.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't a pocket handkerchief...
>>>>
>>> Have it ready rigged, pull the lanyard and hey presto.
>>> Any bunting tosser could rig it in no time flat.
>>> Then drop the other flag...
>>
>>Would a deck hand be hanging around the place where the flag is to no very
>>good purpose not sort of give the game away?
>>
>>I mean, what's he doing? Standing there whistling and trying to look
>>inconspicuous?
>>
>
> He could be schcrubbing ze decks in der vicinity unt looking
> inconspicuous - just ready to leap to the halyards und break out ze
> schwastika ven required!
With a bloody great big light cruiser looming over him...
I think not...
The suggestion has been made that Komoran launched her torpedoes before the
false colours were hauled down.
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
If you will enlarge the photo you will see a crewmember at the forward
flag. Mayhap that is his duty station. I wouldn't see anything
suspicious about one at the mainmast either. I think you assume a lot
about other people's actions.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3199036,00.html
William Black
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:41f5aef6-ed5f-4497...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> flag. Mayhap that is his duty station. I wouldn't see anything
> suspicious about one at the mainmast either. I think you assume a lot
> about other people's actions.
> http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3199036,00.html
I assume nothing.
I always did think the sinking of HMAS Sydney was odd.
Leadfoot
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fruf50$vu8$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
> news:acbe58bb-18da-4e16...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 21, 7:22 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You'd have thought they'd have noticed the flag coming down a bit
>>> quicker.
>>>
>>> And six seconds isn't aterribly long time for doing this trick.
>>>
>>> I don't know if you've ever hoisted a flag when at sea?
>>>
>>> I've seen it done. It's a trivial task, but it takes time.
>>>
>>> It isn't a pocket handkerchief...
>>>
>> Have it ready rigged, pull the lanyard and hey presto.
>> Any bunting tosser could rig it in no time flat.
>> Then drop the other flag...
>
> Would a deck hand be hanging around the place where the flag is to no very
> good purpose not sort of give the game away?
You cover up the area the deckhand would be so he can't be seen.
The Germans had plenty of practice in this, they weren't amateurs
Jack Linthicum
> "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
The other point is that the Sydney sent a flag hoist which essentially
asked the Komoran to verify the fake ID it had given. I would expect
the Komoran flag hoist to be manned for the reply and the regular flag
is also at the same station.
Matt Wiser
and capturing ships was their main mission as part of the war against Allied commerce, they
also had the goal of forcing Allied (primarily British and Commonwealth, but later American)
naval forces to disperse to out of the way areas to protect merchant ships, organize convoys
in areas such as the IO and South Atlantic, and go off on raider hunts when the ships could
be more ably used in the North Atlantic or the Med. One part of this mission was minelaying
in areas not expected to be mined by the Allies: The raider Orion laid mines off New Zealand,
which claimed a 10,000 ton liner, and the Pinguin laid mines (as did a captured tanker) in
Australian waters, which did claim a couple of ships.
Leadfoot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Royal_Oak_%2808%29
833 out of 1234 in harbor at Scapa Flow. Thats what happens when you are
caught with your pants down.
The problem for Sydney were multiple;
The watertight doors probably weren't closed
The lifeboats were shot up by Komorans anti-aircraft guns. Not as a
deliberate act but incidental to killing the crew on the deck and on the
bridge and wreaking as much mayhem as possible to the exposed areas of the
deck most importantly the torpedo stations and the radio shack
The weather really sucked so if you are in the water for very long you're
going to die
No radio message went out. It was a while before anyone started searching.
Probably a simailar situation to the USS Indianapolis.
Vince
interestingly, because torpedoes are slow, it might repeat might have
been enough if the flag came down before the torpedo arrived.
e.g. when do "hostilities commence"
Laying mines for example under false flags was always allowed.
I'll try to check
Vince
Vince
far too narrow a definition
Graf Spee and Emden were both commerce raiders
Vince
Matt Wiser
>
Graf Spee and Emden were not meant to be raiders, but were warships that were assigned
the mission of attacking merchant shipping. A true raider is a ship along the lines of
Atlantis, Pinguin, Thor, Kormoran, Michel, etc. The Emden crew has been called "The Last
Gentlemen of War", but in 1916, while on her second raiding cruise, the crew of Mowe found
British newspapers on a prize that basically said of the raider and her crew: "Pirates one and
all" and "Hang them from the nearest tree." Luckner's raider Seeadler was pretty well thought
out: nobody would think a square-rigger in 1916 would be a commerce raider. 17 ships sunk
or taken as a result before she was wrecked through negligence. By and large, the German
raider skippers in WW II fought cleanly and honorably, though Widder's captain, Helmuth von
Rucketshell, was tried as a war criminal for leaving survivors in the water and for firing on
lifeboats, and was convicted. He was also accused of similar acts as skipper of Michel, but
the only count involving that ship resulted in acquittal.
Gernot Hassenpflug
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fruf50$vu8$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>> news:acbe58bb-18da-4e16...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Mar 21, 7:22 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You'd have thought they'd have noticed the flag coming down a bit
>>>> quicker.
>>>>
>>>> And six seconds isn't aterribly long time for doing this trick.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if you've ever hoisted a flag when at sea?
>>>>
>>>> I've seen it done. It's a trivial task, but it takes time.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't a pocket handkerchief...
>>>>
>>> Have it ready rigged, pull the lanyard and hey presto.
>>> Any bunting tosser could rig it in no time flat.
>>> Then drop the other flag...
>>
>> Would a deck hand be hanging around the place where the flag is to
>> no very good purpose not sort of give the game away?
>
> You cover up the area the deckhand would be so he can't be seen.
>
> The Germans had plenty of practice in this, they weren't amateurs
No, certainly not. Deadly professionals, most certainly a threat to a
cruiser when in range (150 mm guns manned by naval gunners). While
German WWII warships have a bad record for seakeeping and engine
reliability, gunnery in calm seas has IIRC never been denigrated. The
fact that the German crews had the guts to actually go toe to toe with
cruisers is also a good relfection of their motivation and
professionalism. Heck, I would not be as motivated to attract incoming
fire if I had 300 odd sea mines on my decks :-)
The article on the Bismarck site on Hilfskreuzer (I forget which
raider it was) about a meeting between a radier and one of the U-boats
was pretty funny. The U-boat commander radios "you look so harmless!"
upon surfacing, to which the raider captain replies "do you want us to
show you our true colours?" while simultaneously ringing the Action
Stations alarm. The crew, of course responding for real, gave the
U-boat skipper the shock of his life as the raider transformed herself
into an attacker in less than a minute, and he vowed never ever to
take a ship for "harmless" again :-)
I imagine if the preparations were all there, crews standing by and
guns armed and ready, the transition of 6 seconds is quite
possible. Consider more than 400 days at sea. "In practice" would
fairly describe the capabilities at that point! Truly scary.
Some fights were quite savage and short, although risky for the
cruisers involved, such as that of Pinguin and Cornwall; while others
were less "even", such as that of Atlantis and Devonshire (?). I think
an awake cruiser captain should have been able to take out a raider
without too much trouble and without putting himself at risk.
--
BOFH excuse #368:
Failure to adjust for daylight savings time.
Gernot Hassenpflug
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:frujhi$oqv$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:41f5aef6-ed5f-4497...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Mar 20, 4:08 pm, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:47e2c1f6...@news.uunet.co.za...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>"george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>>>> >>news:acbe58bb-18da-4e16...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>> >>> On Mar 21, 7:22 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>>> You'd have thought they'd have noticed the flag coming down a bit
>>>> >>>> quicker.
>>>>
>>>> >>>> And six seconds isn't aterribly long time for doing this trick.
>>>>
>>>> >>>> I don't know if you've ever hoisted a flag when at sea?
>>>>
>>>> >>>> I've seen it done. It's a trivial task, but it takes time.
>>>>
>>>> >>>> It isn't a pocket handkerchief...
>>>>
>>>> >>> Have it ready rigged, pull the lanyard and hey presto.
>>>> >>> Any bunting tosser could rig it in no time flat.
>>>> >>> Then drop the other flag...
/../
>>>> The suggestion has been made that Komoran launched her torpedoes
>>>> before the
>>>> false colours were hauled down.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you will enlarge the photo you will see a crewmember at the forward
>>> flag. Mayhap that is his duty station. I wouldn't see anything
>>> suspicious about one at the mainmast either. I think you assume a lot
>>> about other people's actions.
>>> http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3199036,00.html
>>
>> I assume nothing.
>>
>> I always did think the sinking of HMAS Sydney was odd.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Royal_Oak_%2808%29
>
> 833 out of 1234 in harbor at Scapa Flow. Thats what happens when you
> are caught with your pants down.
>
> The problem for Sydney were multiple;
>
> The watertight doors probably weren't closed
>
> The lifeboats were shot up by Komorans anti-aircraft guns. Not as a
> deliberate act but incidental to killing the crew on the deck and on
> the bridge and wreaking as much mayhem as possible to the exposed
> areas of the deck most importantly the torpedo stations and the radio
> shack
>
> The weather really sucked so if you are in the water for very long
> you're going to die
>
> No radio message went out. It was a while before anyone started
> searching. Probably a simailar situation to the USS Indianapolis.
Yup, all points I have made myself and agree with. Nothing suspicious
about Sydney's disappearance if you ask me. Too bad that was the way
she was handled in the first place.
--
BOFH excuse #293:
You must've hit the wrong any key.
YMC
understand how the Sydney allowed itself to get so close. He told me, it was
standard procedure for the cruiser to treat all unknown vessels as hostile,
shoot a warning shot over the bow of the vessel, stand off and send a
boarding party over to check on it and its crew. Even if a vessel put up a
white flag or a neutral flag, why would the cruiser pull up alongside the
enemy ship until it was made safe with a Marine boarding crew?
Eugene Griessel
Why not? He is aboard an innocent Dutch freighter - why would he be
worried? Worry would be a sign of guilt!
Eugene L Griessel
Never knock on Death's door: ring the doorbell and run (he hates
that).
Eugene Griessel
>
>The problem for Sydney were multiple;
>
>The watertight doors probably weren't closed
Any RN/RAN warship would have had all the X doors and most of the Y
doors closed even at cruising stations. Immediately on assuming a
higher degree of combat readiness (and having ones guns trained on
another ship does show that a higher state of combat readiness had
been assumed) the other doors would also be closed.
>
>The lifeboats were shot up by Komorans anti-aircraft guns. Not as a
>deliberate act but incidental to killing the crew on the deck and on the
>bridge and wreaking as much mayhem as possible to the exposed areas of the
>deck most importantly the torpedo stations and the radio shack
>
>The weather really sucked so if you are in the water for very long you're
>going to die
>
>No radio message went out. It was a while before anyone started searching.
>Probably a simailar situation to the USS Indianapolis.
However the ship managed to steam twelve miles, which showed there was
somebody below doing something. And it's fires were seen for 4 hours
after the action by the Kormoran survivors. It appears, from the
wreckage, that there was no major explosion. One carley float
survived - if there were any survivors able to get to a carley float
they did stand a chance. So we have 640 men disappear. The
alternatives are (broadly):
1 They were all killed in the action (we know this is not true from
the fact the ship was able to steam away)
2 They all burnt to death/were overcome by fumes fighting the fires.
This scenario somehow doesn't strike me as too likely.
3 The abandon ship order was given - but everyone perished in the
water/was eaten by sharks etc.
Another unlikely scenario - and one which would have left significant
debris, lifejackets, flaoting corpses, etc.
4) The crew, bravely engaged in damage control, were entombed when the
ship suddenly capsized taking everyone down with it.
5) The bow section missing, caused a sudden collapse of multiple
bulkheads causing mass flooding forward. Once again this is usually a
slow enough event for some survivors to leap overboard.
All the above is speculation - nobody was there to witness the demise
of the vessel. Forensic analysis of the wreck may offer a plausible
cause, then again it may not. We should wait and see.
Eugene L Griessel
Science is never certain. Scientific statements are merely approximates
with varying degrees of certainty. Evidence can increase the probability
that a statement is more likely to be true or false but it never makes it
absolutely certain one way or the other. - Richard Feynman
YMC
news:120605...@alibistextweb.com...
I just came back from a visit to the Otway lighthouse down on the Coast of
Victoria, Australia- thousands of miles away from the war in Europe. There's
a plaque there dedicated to the SS City of Rayville which struck a mine off
the waters of Bass Strait on November 8, 1940 and at 7.47pm laid by the
German raider Pinguin and German captured Norwegian freighter Storstad.
Ray O'Hara
people are pretty small at over a mile.
Ray O'Hara
"Leadfoot" <Lead...@leadfoot.net> wrote in message
news:6xCEj.34672$0M3....@newsfe17.lga...
the watertight doors could easily have been closed. toepedoes hitting a CL
will sink it anyway.
Ray O'Hara
"YMC" <nospamther...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47e3550b$0$14479$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
fire was commenced at about a mile. that isn't exactly "alongside"
Don Ocean
During the Korean Conflict a US 2250 ton destroyer making a firing run
hit a towed mine. It blew the bow off and the forward surge tore through
bulkheads all the way to both fire rooms and both Engine rooms. It
actually dived in less the 3 seconds and blew up under water. Some
survivors not very many. I think it was a Forest Sherman class, but
can't remember the name of it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Eugene Griessel
Different scenarios altogether. We know the Sidney was afloat 4 hours
after damage inflicted on her. I could imagine a destroyer, at some
speed, hitting a mine and suffering the fate you describe. However
this did not happen to Sydney or she would have sunk a lot sooner.
Eugene L Griessel
Entropy isn't what it used to be.
Eugene Griessel
BTW - the US lost no destroyers during the Korean conflict. The only
US naval losses were 4 minesweepers and a tug. The Ernest Small, a
Gearing class destroyer IIRC, lost her bows to a mine but remained
afloat.
Eugene L Griessel
Entropy isn't what it used to be.
- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
Eugene Griessel
>
>The problem for Sydney were multiple;
>
>The watertight doors probably weren't closed
"The obvious way then, to keep the ship as watertight as possible is
to keep all openings which concern water-tight integrity permanently
closed both at sea and in harbour." RN Manual of Damage Control -
1938.
It then goes on to discuss the various doors and hatches and when and
how and under what conditions they may be temporarily opened. Anyone
who has ever experienced RN (justified) paranoia about water-tight
integrity will know that your statement about the watertight doors is
nonsense.
X doors/hatches are permanently closed, completely dogged and may only
be opened with permission from the OOD/OOW or DCHQ.
Y doors/hatches may be opened for passage but must be closed
immediately thereafter. If a Y door is not a RED door it may be
dogged with only two clips when in a relaxed state of action otherwise
RED Y doors are completely clipped.
Z openings refer mostly to gas-tight integrity.
This is not the merchant marine, you know!
Eugene L Griessel
Entropy isn't what it used to be.
- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
Paul J. Adam
<Lead...@leadfoot.net> writes
>"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:fruf50$vu8$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>very good purpose not sort of give the game away?
>
>You cover up the area the deckhand would be so he can't be seen.
>
>The Germans had plenty of practice in this, they weren't amateurs
We managed it with Q-ships (results variable, but much entertainment had
by captains planning "panic parties" and otherwise feigning the
"helpless merchantman" routine) so I don't find it unreasonable that the
Germans could be reasonably ingenious in keeping their legality with a
lightning-quick swap of ensigns. Why, if it's good enough for Jack
Aubrey...
(It's also not impossible that Kormoran simply kept her false flags up
and blasted away, too: in the absence of survivors we're left with only
partial picture)
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com
Paul J. Adam
<eugene@dynagen.?.co.?.za.invalid> writes
>Anyone
>who has ever experienced RN (justified) paranoia about water-tight
>integrity will know that your statement about the watertight doors is
>nonsense.
>
>X doors/hatches are permanently closed, completely dogged and may only
>be opened with permission from the OOD/OOW or DCHQ.
>
>Y doors/hatches may be opened for passage but must be closed
>immediately thereafter. If a Y door is not a RED door it may be
>dogged with only two clips when in a relaxed state of action otherwise
>RED Y doors are completely clipped.
>
>Z openings refer mostly to gas-tight integrity.
>
>This is not the merchant marine, you know!
Still true now, and a civilian sea-rider had better learn the rules
rapidly if he wishes his welcome to last....
William Black
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:A+MKFWZE...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> In message <3iCEj.90472$Ft5....@newsfe15.lga>, Leadfoot
> <Lead...@leadfoot.net> writes
>>"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:fruf50$vu8$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> Would a deck hand be hanging around the place where the flag is to no
>>> very good purpose not sort of give the game away?
>>
>>You cover up the area the deckhand would be so he can't be seen.
>>
>>The Germans had plenty of practice in this, they weren't amateurs
>
> We managed it with Q-ships (results variable, but much entertainment had
> by captains planning "panic parties" and otherwise feigning the "helpless
> merchantman" routine) so I don't find it unreasonable that the Germans
> could be reasonably ingenious in keeping their legality with a
> lightning-quick swap of ensigns. Why, if it's good enough for Jack
> Aubrey...
>
> (It's also not impossible that Kormoran simply kept her false flags up and
> blasted away, too: in the absence of survivors we're left with only
> partial picture)
Except that if you don't sink the thing and kill or capture everyone
concerned you're in dead trouble...
The whole episode is deeply troubling, and has always seemed so to me.
Vince
> Vince <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote:
> Graf Spee and Emden were not meant to be raiders, but were warships that were assigned
> the mission of attacking merchant shipping.
Who says?
The confederate cruisers that devastated the northern commerce were
"raiders"
Vince
Vince
I agree
in addition you always took a position directly astern of the ship
very few raiders had hidden guns that could bear astern
Vince
Vince
1700 yards is point blank range for naval guns
That will do for "alongside"
Vince
Eugene Griessel
Mmmmm. The gunners I knew would still cheerfully miss a substantial
target at 400 yards. I remember an enjoyable morning while they
expended a substantial amount of 40 mm on an old trawler. The safest
place at sea was aboard the trawler ...... they finally closed to 400
yards and still managed to miss the damn thing.
Close up the Chef's and Engineroom gun crews. Trawler was sinking
within minutes.
Eugene L Griessel
It is paradoxical that in this time of drastic rapid change, when the
future is devouring the present before our eyes, we have never been
less certain about what lies ahead.
Peter Skelton
Binoculars, directors
Peter Skelton
Vince
> Vince <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>
>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>> "YMC" <nospamther...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:47e3550b$0$14479$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>> I had a talk with a RN WW1 veteran many years ago and he just didn't
>>>> understand how the Sydney allowed itself to get so close. He told me, it
>>> was
>>>> standard procedure for the cruiser to treat all unknown vessels as
>>> hostile,
>>>> shoot a warning shot over the bow of the vessel, stand off and send a
>>>> boarding party over to check on it and its crew. Even if a vessel put up a
>>>> white flag or a neutral flag, why would the cruiser pull up alongside the
>>>> enemy ship until it was made safe with a Marine boarding crew?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> fire was commenced at about a mile. that isn't exactly "alongside"
>>>
>>>
>> 1700 yards is point blank range for naval guns
>
> Mmmmm. The gunners I knew would still cheerfully miss a substantial
> target at 400 yards. I remember an enjoyable morning while they
> expended a substantial amount of 40 mm on an old trawler. The safest
> place at sea was aboard the trawler ...... they finally closed to 400
> yards and still managed to miss the damn thing.
>
> Close up the Chef's and Engineroom gun crews. Trawler was sinking
> within minutes.
>
assuming your enemy cant shoot is very dangerous
Cruisers were given "big" guns so they could out range any potential
opponent
you stop the ship at about 10,000 yards and send a boat you stay "end
on, closed up and guns loaded
We are talking about the main armament of a 6" cruiser
the mark XXIII was a fine gun
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_6-50_mk23.htm
It will hit the target from 10,000 yards very quickly
Vince
Paul J. Adam
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:A+MKFWZE...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> blasted away, too: in the absence of survivors we're left with only
>> partial picture)
>
>Except that if you don't sink the thing and kill or capture everyone
>concerned you're in dead trouble...
Worse trouble than taking on a cruiser with an AMC in a stand-up fight?
>The whole episode is deeply troubling, and has always seemed so to me.
Insufficient evidence to do more than speculate, though as you say some
of the options are not very nice.
YMC
news:U6-dndPRHLUZM37a...@comcast.com...
Check out the debate at soc.history.war.world-war-ii the debate over there
turned something nasty.
Ray O'Hara
no it won't do. apples and oranges vinnie.
alongside means alongside not pointblank gun range.
Ray O'Hara
the kormoran had the same size guns as the sydney.
if one was in range they both were in range.
the krupp 5.9inch was a fine gun too.
Ray O'Hara
the obvious conclusion is had the sydney's captian survived he would have
been court-martialed and hung from the nearest yardarm.
Eugene Griessel
Obviously your criteria for coming to conclusions is incredibly lax.
You should apply for a job a judge.
Eugene L Griessel
It hurts to be on the cutting edge.
Vince
alongside
alongside is a word with many meanings in as many contexts
A critical meaning is means "side by side"
i.e. parallel
separation distance depends on the function
i.e. alongside for docking is different form coming alongside in a fleet
maneuver
When Nelson said
"No Captain can do very wrong if he places his Ship alongside that of
the Enemy".
he clearly meant for it to "engage the enemy"
i.e. they should be in effective gun range
Vince
Vince
A good (albeit old )gun but the 30 degree mount used gave it a somewhat
shorter range but
that is why you approach a strange ship from the bow or stern
Warships are designed to shoot dead ahead and astern.
It is very hard to hide guns that shoot ahead and astern
Vince
Jack Linthicum
> >news:deidnTp2ENbXIH7a...@comcast.com...
> >> Eugene Griessel wrote:
I keep wondering if the Sydney had "going home" syndrome. Lax because
they were just a day or less (I make it 400 miles) out of Perth and
already shining shoes and cleaning up.
Ray O'Hara
> It is very hard to hide guns that shoot ahead and astern
>
> Vince
not on an AMC, they can easily be hidden in a fake deck structure.
Ray O'Hara
apples and oranges again. in nelson's day they got along side and even
grappled ships together.
he meant it to mean along side "borders away" he was killed by a musket
ball. that is well withing effective cannon rane.
the U.S.S.Constitution engaged the guerriere "at half a pistol shot" that
is paint swapping close.
William Black
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.p...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:loudnaGP5IjIfH7a...@rcn.net...
>
> the kormoran had the same size guns as the sydney.
> if one was in range they both were in range.
> the krupp 5.9inch was a fine gun too.
>
The Kormoran didn't have automatic shell hoists and a central director.
In a ranged fight she's have been sunk in minutes.
Ray O'Hara
"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
> >
> > the obvious conclusion is had the sydney's captian survived he would
have
> >been court-martialed and hung from the nearest yardarm.
>
> Obviously your criteria for coming to conclusions is incredibly lax.
> You should apply for a job a judge.
>
> Eugene L Griessel
he didn't lose his ship through an amazing display of skill and competence
on his part. he allowed his ship to be ambushed in the daytime.
William Black
But Ray, you think, and I use the work 'think' here with some trepidation,
that all British officers should be hung from the nearest yardarm...
Vince
Vince
Vince
effective gun range
Vince
Ray O'Hara
you can't hide any gun when its firing. but you can hide every gun when they
aren't.
all it takes is a few drop down fake walls. its not that difficult.
Ray O'Hara
in your opinion but not in his practice.. you are claiming to know what you
cannot know.
which is what you always do. you form your opinion and then make everything
fit it. where you on the warren commission perchance?
Ray O'Hara
not at all. and aussies aren't brits by the way. but any captain in any
navy who loses his ship the way burnett lost his does.
i actually used to like the british before i discovered the usenet and the
utter hate you limey's have for america.
after a few years of the likes of you and a few others i got rather tired
of all your whinning.
the arrogance you twits display is quite offputting. especially when you
have so little to be arrogant about.
mostly though i just equate you and a few others {swallow} as the british
equivilents of DSH and not as representitive of the whole nation.
my high school had a very nice collection of books on naval subjects one of
which had a good account of the sydney vs the bartolomo colleoni.
and even c.s.forrester's WWII "the ship" a book about an unnamed brit CL on
the malta run. it is a very good bit of propaganda for the folks on the home
front.
Andre Lieven
> Eugene Griessel wrote:
> > "Leadfoot" <Leadf...@leadfoot.net> wrote:
>
> >> The problem for Sydney were multiple;
>
> >> The watertight doors probably weren't closed
>
> > Any RN/RAN warship would have had all the X doors and most of the Y
> > doors closed even at cruising stations. Immediately on assuming a
> > higher degree of combat readiness (and having ones guns trained on
> > another ship does show that a higher state of combat readiness had
> > been assumed) the other doors would also be closed.
>
> >> The lifeboats were shot up by Komorans anti-aircraft guns. Not as a
> >> deliberate act but incidental to killing the crew on the deck and on the
> >> bridge and wreaking as much mayhem as possible to the exposed areas of the
> >> deck most importantly the torpedo stations and the radio shack
>
> >> The weather really sucked so if you are in the water for very long you're
> >> going to die
>
> >> No radio message went out. It was a while before anyone started searching.
> >> Probably a simailar situation to the USS Indianapolis.
>
> > However the ship managed to steam twelve miles, which showed there was
> > somebody below doing something. And it's fires were seen for 4 hours
> > after the action by the Kormoran survivors. It appears, from the
> > wreckage, that there was no major explosion. One carley float
> > survived - if there were any survivors able to get to a carley float
> > they did stand a chance. So we have 640 men disappear. The
> > alternatives are (broadly):
>
> > 1 They were all killed in the action (we know this is not true from
> > the fact the ship was able to steam away)
>
> > 2 They all burnt to death/were overcome by fumes fighting the fires.
> > This scenario somehow doesn't strike me as too likely.
>
> > 3 The abandon ship order was given - but everyone perished in the
> > water/was eaten by sharks etc.
> > Another unlikely scenario - and one which would have left significant
> > debris, lifejackets, flaoting corpses, etc.
>
> > 4) The crew, bravely engaged in damage control, were entombed when the
> > ship suddenly capsized taking everyone down with it.
>
> > 5) The bow section missing, caused a sudden collapse of multiple
> > bulkheads causing mass flooding forward. Once again this is usually a
> > slow enough event for some survivors to leap overboard.
>
> > All the above is speculation - nobody was there to witness the demise
> > of the vessel. Forensic analysis of the wreck may offer a plausible
> > cause, then again it may not. We should wait and see.
>
> > Eugene L Griessel
>
> During the Korean Conflict a US 2250 ton destroyer making a firing run
> hit a towed mine. It blew the bow off and the forward surge tore through
> bulkheads all the way to both fire rooms and both Engine rooms. It
> actually dived in less the 3 seconds and blew up under water. Some
> survivors not very many. I think it was a Forest Sherman class,
Since the Forrest Sherman only commissioned in the USN on Nov. 5,
1955, this is impossible.
> but can't remember the name of it.
IOW, this story is pure fiction. Thanks for clearing that up.
Andre
Vince
> "Vince" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
> news:bu2dnau_VcEfh3na...@comcast.com...
>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>> "Vince" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
>>> news:euOdnVNbYsI-cH7a...@comcast.com...
>>>> It is very hard to hide guns that shoot ahead and astern
>>>>
>>>> Vince
>>> not on an AMC, they can easily be hidden in a fake deck
>>> structure.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> not firing dead astern
>>
>>
>> Vince
>
>
> you can't hide any gun when its firing. but you can hide every gun
> when they aren't. all it takes is a few drop down fake walls. its not
> that difficult.
yes it is.
the problem of firing ahead and astern has always complicated warship
design that is why they have flush decks
merchant ships have forecastles and after castles etc for a reason. you
cant just plunk many tons of cannon and magazines on the stern of a ship
Vince
Vince
you ignored the context of the comment
the comment was
>>>>> up a
>>>>>>>> white flag or a neutral flag, why would the cruiser pull up
>>>>>>>> alongside
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> enemy ship until it was made safe with a Marine boarding crew?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fire was commenced at about a mile. that isn't exactly
>>>>>>> "alongside"
In the context of investigating a suspicious ship in time of war , 1
mile is ridiculously close
you tried to score a cheap point by ignoring the context
you dodged the issue of whether a mile to challenge ship is reasonable
it isn't
i called you on it
live with it
Vince
Ray O'Hara
they didn't just "plunk"anything. they overhauled/refit/converted the
ships.
Ray O'Hara
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> fire was commenced at about a mile. that isn't exactly
> >>>>>>> "alongside"
>
> In the context of investigating a suspicious ship in time of war , 1
> mile is ridiculously close
i do too. i've already suggested the captain was incompetent.
but that doesn't mean they were alongside. that the kormoran was able to get
off several salvoes does not speak well of the sydney's level of alert. i
can't imagine not going to full action stations and having all the main
battery manned ready and trained.
>
> you tried to score a cheap point by ignoring the context
> you dodged the issue of whether a mile to challenge ship is reasonable
> it isn't
>
> i called you on it
>
> live with it
>
> Vince
i didn't say it was reasonable or not. i said it wasn't "alongside" along
side means within voice hailing distance.
i've called you on it and you've squirmed and taken unrelated quotes from
the 18th/19th century as back-up.
and you were the one who said "can do no wrong" when it was cklear the
sydney did everything wrong.
live with it. you're reaching
Vince
you still cant put it on the stern in a hidden position
you have a deck overhead
Vince
dott.Piergiorgio
Everyone hold a bit... From the indirect, and because of this, lo-res
sonar images, I'm not actually sure that the broken part is the prow...
seems to me that is the stern... if so, through the shafts there can be
a rather quick flooding of X magazine, and both engine rooms, and
perhaps also the Y magazine; more than enough for a sudden loss of
buovancy, IMHO. (in other words, something like what happened to PoW
some months later)
And, I'm wrong or there's no turrets lying on the seabed, as they should
be after a capsizing during sinking ?
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
dott.Piergiorgio
>
>
> my high school had a very nice collection of books on naval subjects one of
> which had a good account of the sydney vs the bartolomo colleoni.
in wchich the Sydney expend nearby all the ammo and get only two,
perhaps three hits; one fatal on the frail Colleoni and perhaps another,
and a hit on the Bande Nere's superstructure on the subsequent running
phase (the chase of the BN)
also, earlier there was another incident (not involving Sydney) in
wchich a group of HM Cruisers expense nearby all the magazines agaist a
covering Italian DD, sinking it but this expense of shells led to the
successful disengagement of the other two DD ot the "squadriglia"
(equivalent of an US DesDiv). This engagements and the Punta Stilo
battle (another example of poor performance of RN 6" gunners, albeit
there's was much more range) led to a serious shortage of 6" shells in
the Alexandria depot, IIUC.
I don't know what was the actual RN/RAN intelligence on german raider's
FC equipment, but I have the feeling that the CO of Sydney want to be
sure of a quick conclusion in the case the "merchant" turn out to be
something else (one must remember that also there are blockade runner
(albeit is very dubious that one will be in that waters) and support
oilers for the raiders)
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. piergiorgio.
Ray O'Hara
"dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote in
message news:NEXEj.28632$q53....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
has theere been a thorough enough survey to tell? and are turrets on smaller
ships just held down by gravity or are they secured better?
Ray O'Hara
"dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote in
message news:T%XEj.28640$q53....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
and the colleoni never hit anything, so far be it for you to denigrate brit
shooting.
and also lying about the ships speed was weak. i remember the sydney's
officers were rather suprised to be overhauling the "40 knot" colleoni when
their best speed was 32knots. so much for running sea trials sans turrets.
Ray O'Hara
the ship has a raised stern castle. they could easily put in in that and
cut drop down doors. and a collapsing fake structure on the rear deck is not
impossible. the guns are not that huge.
the guns used on kormoran were
15cm skl/45 a 45 cal gun{22 feet} that fired a 99lbs shell,
a muzzle vel of 2740 fps
a max range of 21,220 yards at 30degree elevation
the gun weighed 6 tons including mount
taken from naval weapons of WWII by john campbell page 244
naval institute press 1985
first published in Gr Br 1985.
Vince
IMHO fantasy
please provide an example , ever of such a concealed mount
Vince
Ray O'Hara
> >
> > the ship has a raised stern castle. they could easily put in in that
> > and cut drop down doors. and a collapsing fake structure on the rear
> > deck is not impossible. the guns are not that huge.
> >
> > the guns used on kormoran were 15cm skl/45 a 45 cal gun{22 feet} that
> > fired a 99lbs shell, a muzzle vel of 2740 fps a max range of 21,220
> > yards at 30degree elevation the gun weighed 6 tons including mount
> >
> > taken from naval weapons of WWII by john campbell page 244 naval
> > institute press 1985 first published in Gr Br 1985.
>
>
> IMHO fantasy
> please provide an example , ever of such a concealed mount
>
>
> Vince
turns out kormoran has a gun that can fire to its stern its last 5.9
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/kriegsmarine/raider/kormoran/kormorandata.html
Eugene Griessel
2 in fact. One wonders where Viknce got this bee in his bonnet about
it being impossible to fit a gun on the stern of a merchantmen seeing
as hundreds of merchantmen were fitted with one during WW2. As for
concealment, I recall at least one German raider of WW2 carrying a
fake railway car on stern (as deck freight one presumes) which
concealed the gun.
Eugene L Griessel
It's hard to make a comeback when you haven't been anywhere.
- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
TMOliver
"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote ...
merchant vessels with 5"/51s, elderly quite heavy LA guns stripped from
capital ships, mounted in raised "tubs" on the foc'sles and/or sterncastles,
literally in the eyes and on the poop.... All the sponson and deckhouse
locations of USN 5"/38s (even twins in GEARINGS/SUMMERS) suggest that the
mounts' recoil reduction capacity was high allowing mounts in fairly light
structures well above "strength decks"
Most of the German raiders/naval auxiliaries, former MVs converted for such
use, look to have most of the "main battery" gun mounts on the main deck,
concealed behind hinged flaps, train limited by the width of the flap and
the location of the mount in relation to the flap. KORMORAN's forward four
mounts look capable of train close to (but not directly) dead ahead, while
the after mounts are centerline on the sterncastle, at least one, maybe both
if superposed capable of firing dead astern (as was a twin 37mm aft on the
counter. They may/were likely to have been concealed by some sort of
collapsible deckhouse.The geocities site (but neither Taylor or Lenton)
reports a 75mm (3" DP?) far forward in the eyes of the ship, providing some
capability for surface fire dead ahead, although the location may have had
something to do with field of fire for AAW use. One problem in a converted
MV would be that superstructure mounted guns AA would always be knocking
chunks from kingposts, booms, etc., a real annoyance....
KORMORAN was no small MV. At 515' oa and 8736 grt/19,000 tons max disp.,
was certainly large enough to carry more than 6 single 5.9s, 2 twin 37mm and
a few 20mm singles plus 4 21" TT, and according to Lenton 420 (420!) mines.
Add 2 Arado 196s and an MTB stored on deck, she would have been a formidable
opponent. Capable of 18 knots and a range of 84,000 miles on diesels, she
would have possessed a substantial buoyancy reserve, making her capable of
absorbing a lot of gunfire down low, although the amount of explosive in the
mines, not stored in protected or floodable magazines would have a potential
DC nightmare (as would the AR196s. I suspect that the two a/c were not for
simultaneous operations, but one was carried "broken down" as a spare.
There no note of a catapult, so the a/c would have been set into the water
by cargo handling booms for ops and lifted back aboard after landing. The
MTB must have been launched and recovered in the same fashion, in neither
case a rapid, simple evolution and certainly quite limited by sea state (and
wind).
Lenton suggests that her loss was due to fire/explosion of mines, although
not specific if they on rails for laying or stored below. Standard practice
would have had the mine rails concealed by the after deckhouse/castle with
chute(s) at the fantail aft of the screw and rudder, with stowage in one of
the after holds, movable to the main deck using the ship's "as built" cargo
handling rig.
TMO
TMOliver
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.p...@rcn.com> wrote ....
>
> has theere been a thorough enough survey to tell? and are turrets on
> smaller
> ships just held down by gravity or are they secured better?
>
>
There are no "turrets" on smaller ships, but gun houses or shielded mounts.
While heavy cruisers likely have barbette structures extending down to
magazines, many light cruisers had little more than shell handling hoists
one or more decks below the mounts. USN 5"/38s are fed by hoists from a
"shell handling space" directly below the mount, "armored" only in theory on
DDs and very lightly in cruisers. While rotating mounts and even turrets
may have retaining clips securing the mount to the training ring, the clips
are certainly not designed to hold the mount/gunhouse/turret in place if the
ship capsizes (but are designed to handle a margin above projected roll and
pitch angles.
"Gunhouse" is under used in smn and ought to be employed more often for
accuracy.
As for the accuracy of naval guns, I am continually amazed by those here who
believe the same tales as once were told by the "drop'em in a pickle barrel"
fans of the Norden bombsight. I'm certainly not surprised that SYDNEY's
first salvo was an over, and having actually fired a few 5"/38s from the
director and from the mount on local control, I'll testify that the results
were not unlike the exaggerations that have crept into the resumes of
Western "gunfighters". It ain't near as easy as it looks through the lens
of Hollywood (or J. Arthur Rank).
As one of my shipmates used to claim, "It's a good thing this gun fires so
rapidly, because we can get on the target before it sinks below the
horizon."
As for the range between SYDNEY and KORMORAN, there would certainly have
been a RAN/RN written tactical doctrine specifying the parameters of IDing
an unknown MV, but local commands and COs have been known to subvert the
best of intentions. 2,000 yards/1 nm sounds reasonable and expectable,
especially given to optics onboard SYDNEY. Any boarding would have been
carried out by small boat (another reason that SYDNEY was likely to have a
MWB in her davits, war or no war, but a fire extinguisher nearby because of
the petrol). I long ago learned never to trust witness statements or sea
stories when it comes to how close something was....(whether the description
is of the prospects for getting laid or the proximity of another ship).
TMO
Ray O'Hara
"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
only 1 of the 5.9s could fire astern. the other would have been masked by
the raised stern castle.
Eugene Griessel
I have learned to trust no witness statements or sea stories (not even
my own) because they have a fascinating tendency to grow, pad out,
become more extreme with time. Even when you _know_ that it is not
what happened you start believing your own exaggerations over time.
The 25 pound smoke bomb that fell 1000 yards away comes closer and
grows so that within 2 decades its a 2000 pounder HE that near missed
the focsle.
I once read about three fellows who would get together annually for a
dinner and drinks and a chinwag about WW2. Slowly, over the years,
the supply truck that one had driven metamorphised into an armoured
car. The second character ended up in an AA unit that fought ahead of
the infantry and I cannot remember the third fellow's fantasy. While
they all knew the others were lying none of them ever challenged each
other on the subject.
Eugene L Griessel
Prostitutes perform the same functions as priests, but far more thoroughly.
Leadfoot
"TMOliver" <tmoliv...@hot.rr.comFIX> wrote in message
news:47e537b8$0$16678$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
I read somewhere that Sydney's captain may have thought it was a German
supply ship operating in the area that his command wished captured rather
than sunk.
Would explain why Sydney got too close.
>
>
Ray O'Hara
"TMOliver" <tmoliv...@hot.rr.comFIX> wrote in message
news:47e537b8$0$16678$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>
> >
> > has theere been a thorough enough survey to tell? and are turrets on
> > smaller
> > ships just held down by gravity or are they secured better?
> >
> >
> There are no "turrets" on smaller ships, but gun houses or shielded
mounts.
> While heavy cruisers likely have barbette structures extending down to
> magazines, many light cruisers had little more than shell handling hoists
> one or more decks below the mounts.
they are commonly called turrets.
even the large armored barbettes on BBs are called turrets.
you are being an anal pedant of hinesian proportion.
Ray O'Hara
"Leadfoot" <Lead...@leadfoot.net> wrote in message
news:kybFj.100647$Ft5....@newsfe15.lga...
> > TMO
>
>
> I read somewhere that Sydney's captain may have thought it was a German
> supply ship operating in the area that his command wished captured rather
> than sunk.
>
> Would explain why Sydney got too close.
> >
> >
>
as we will never know any speculation is as valid as the next.
Vince
There is no source for the diagram and there is a 37 mm AA gun astern of
the aftermost 5.9
Vince
Vince
no, the 37mm is astern of the upper gun the forward upper gun is on the
well deck
putting an open obvious gun on the stern is easy
putting an adequately concealed gun is harder
my point is that the safest approach to a strange ship is from the stern
guns loaded and trained
Vince
a gun on the stern is eas
Vince
When I look at picture of the ship it would not appear to be possible
possibly even probably true but it does not change my point
The safest approach by a cruiser to any unknown ship is from the stern
you minimize the target you present , while keeping half or more of the
firepower.
first sign of anything "dropping" you open fire
in contrast A submarine would keep its bow pointed at the broadside of
the target, so as to maximize the torpedo effectiveness
Vince
Vince
Vince
Gunnery Accuracy at sea is direct function of the relative velocity and
the range
When both ships are hove to at point blank range its not a big deal to
hit on the first shot
Vince
Leadfoot
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.p...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:NKqdna08Q-Eh03ja...@rcn.net...
that's one they probably have in the archives assuning the story I read has
some basis in fact.
>
>
Leadfoot
If you backtrack through the source webpage you will see that diagram used
for other raiders as well
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/kriegsmarine/raider/
I would consider the diagram interesting but not proof. A photo OTOH....
>
> Vince
Eugene Griessel
Why? A small wooden deckhouse it all that's needed. With sides that
are hinged.
>
>my point is that the safest approach to a strange ship is from the stern
Oh, I agree with this - but it is not necessarily 100% safe.
>guns loaded and trained
>
Eugene L Griessel
A good time to keep your mouth shut is when you're in deep water.
Eugene Griessel
Ray O'Hara
the sydney wasn't fast enough to maintain a position astern as all the
kormoran would need to do is turn
no one is disputing that the sydney did everything in a very lax manner.
there is no way an alert ship should have been taken so unawares.
it's mind-boggling that in the midst of a war they could have been so
cavalier in approaching an unkown ship.
Eugene Griessel
Aye - there's the rub though. Because of almost paranoid security
surrounding these vessels very few photographs of their armament
exists. There are a few photographs taken by allied aircraft of the
ships - and from which one can deduce which of the deckhouses were
probably fake. But security was so tight from the German side that
Luftwaffe aircraft were ordered to keep well away from them. The
Luftwaffe helped with reccie work, especially on their breakouts
through the blockade, but it was not thought safe for them to actually
see the ships in case they gossipped and the gossip reached the
allies.
Eugene L Griessel
I'm not paranoid! Which of my enemies told you that?
Ray O'Hara
your point in this snippet was that they couldn't conceal a gun that could
fire astern.
they did. the 5.9 could easily fire over the twin 3.7cm gun. all that takes
it for the 3.7 crew to move when the 5.9 fires over its head.
they found that the main battery and AA rarely were used at the same time.