Page 2 of 3
RE: OT: HMAS Sydney
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:56 am
by zuikaku
Well, I've never been on the combat ship, so I dont know[;)] And since, i don't live by the sea, I don't know much about damage control...
RE: OT: HMAS Sydney
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:02 pm
by NemRod
A link to a very intersting site about WW2 cruisers.
http://www.world-war.co.uk/
One of the "STORIES" is about the loss of HMAS Sydney.
RE: OT: HMAS Sydney
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:06 pm
by LargeSlowTarget
ORIGINAL: Terminus
The Kormoran's crew estimated that they inflicted around 1,000 hits on the Sidney with their primary and secondary batteries, as well as their anti-aircraft guns, plus a torpedo hit for good measure.
What secondary batteries?
RE: OT: HMAS Sydney
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:11 pm
by DuckofTindalos
As far as I've been able to find, the Kormoran had 6 6-inchers, a 75mm, two 37mm and 5 20mm guns, plus 6 torpedo tubes.
RE: OT: HMAS Sydney
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:14 pm
by zuikaku
ORIGINAL: NemRod
A link to a very intersting site about WW2 cruisers.
http://www.world-war.co.uk/
One of the "STORIES" is about the loss of HMAS Sydney.
thanks a lot. This report explains why nobody survived a bit more (use of AP shells and hundreds of them exploding inside the ship after penetrating armour belt).
RE: OT: HMAS Sydney
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:29 pm
by trojan58
You've also got to remember that according to the German survivors the "Sydney's" crew were lining the decks basically sky-larking and taking in the view, at a range of 1000 yards or less the Kormorans 37mm and 20mm secondaries would have cut them down in droves. The forward guns were quickly knocked by a torpedo hit and the bridge wipped out by 6" gun fire. It was not unusuall for ships to sink with no survivors located, how many merchant ships and escorts went down in the Battle of the Atlantic with no one surviving, especially if no-one was immediatelly at hand to rescue them. The Kormoran was in a diiferent situation. They had actually only taken a few hits, however the fires reached the mine deck which was still full and they were unable to ditch them. They abandoned ship in a more controlled manner (life raft and boats launched) with relatively plenty of time to spare before the mines blew. If she had had time to ditch the mines its possible she may have survived.
RE: OT: HMAS Sydney
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:34 pm
by zuikaku
ORIGINAL: trojan
You've also got to remember that according to the German survivors the "Sydney's" crew were lining the decks basically sky-larking and taking in the view, at a range of 1000 yards or less the Kormorans 37mm and 20mm secondaries would have cut them down in droves. The forward guns were quickly knocked by a torpedo hit and the bridge wipped out by 6" gun fire. It was not unusuall for ships to sink with no survivors located, how many merchant ships and escorts went down in the Battle of the Atlantic with no one surviving, especially if no-one was immediatelly at hand to rescue them. The Kormoran was in a diiferent situation. They had actually only taken a few hits, however the fires reached the mine deck which was still full and they were unable to ditch them. They abandoned ship in a more controlled manner (life raft and boats launched) with relatively plenty of time to spare before the mines blew. If she had had time to ditch the mines its possible she may have survived.
They couldn't ditch mines since they had no power! Mines can not be ditched if ship drifts out of control...
RE: OT: HMAS Sydney
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:42 pm
by LargeSlowTarget
Well, to split the hairs - 37mm and 20mm are AA, not secondary. The 75mm was 'in the open' as part of the disguise as an Allied MCS, since most Allied freighters carried deck guns. Now and then it was used as 'Anhaltekanone' ('stopping gun'), i.e. for firing warning shots in order to demand a victim to stop. Hardly a secondary battery either.
RE: OT: HMAS Sydney
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:54 pm
by trojan58
I think you'll fined a secondary battery is anything not defined as the Primary battery, hence the 37mm and 20mm are secondaries to the main guns 6".
RE: OT: HMAS Sydney
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:58 pm
by LargeSlowTarget
Matter of perception, let's agree to disagree.
RE: OT: HMAS Sydney
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:02 pm
by Sneer
ORIGINAL: zuikaku
ORIGINAL: trojan
You've also got to remember that according to the German survivors the "Sydney's" crew were lining the decks basically sky-larking and taking in the view, at a range of 1000 yards or less the Kormorans 37mm and 20mm secondaries would have cut them down in droves. The forward guns were quickly knocked by a torpedo hit and the bridge wipped out by 6" gun fire. It was not unusuall for ships to sink with no survivors located, how many merchant ships and escorts went down in the Battle of the Atlantic with no one surviving, especially if no-one was immediatelly at hand to rescue them. The Kormoran was in a diiferent situation. They had actually only taken a few hits, however the fires reached the mine deck which was still full and they were unable to ditch them. They abandoned ship in a more controlled manner (life raft and boats launched) with relatively plenty of time to spare before the mines blew. If she had had time to ditch the mines its possible she may have survived.
They couldn't ditch mines since they had no power! Mines can not be ditched if ship drifts out of control...
it hink they can be if they are not armed [;)]
RE: OT: HMAS Sydney
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:16 pm
by zuikaku
Without ANY power?? A mine weigts half a ton at least!
RE: OT: HMAS Sydney
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:20 pm
by trojan58
Didn't realize she was without power but that would help explain why the fire became uncontrolable. No power for pumps, etc.
RE: OT: HMAS Sydney
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:22 pm
by DuckofTindalos
Of course the crew claims they scuttled her...
RE: OT: HMAS Sydney
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:23 pm
by zuikaku
Only 3 hits and she sunk! Thats kind a sad! And bad luck [:(]
RE: OT: HMAS Sydney
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:25 pm
by zuikaku
ORIGINAL: Terminus
Of course the crew claims they scuttled her...
I doubt there was any need for scuttling... after all her mine storage went off. There were no flooding, and if there were no mines aboard they'll probably would try to save her.
RE: OT: HMAS Sydney
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:53 pm
by LargeSlowTarget
Sydney's hits started a fire in the machinery spaces which could not be contained, so abandon ship was ordered. Explosive charges were lit to scuttle the ship, the mine stowage explosion simply sped up the process. Like Bismarck - scuttled, not sunk! [:'(][:D][;)]
RE: OT: HMAS Sydney
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:56 pm
by trojan58
I suppose it would have sunk anyway if it wasnt scuttled. Remindes me of the Britsh Admiral after the Italian raid on Alexandria Harbour that sank the Valiant and Queen Elizabeth. He stated they weren't sunk because there decks were above water. Just because they were sitting on the bottom makes no matter. Probably lucky the harbour wasn't 100' deep.
RE: OT: HMAS Sydney
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:26 pm
by MarcA
ORIGINAL: trojan
I suppose it would have sunk anyway if it wasnt scuttled. Remindes me of the Britsh Admiral after the Italian raid on Alexandria Harbour that sank the Valiant and Queen Elizabeth. He stated they weren't sunk because there decks were above water. Just because they were sitting on the bottom makes no matter. Probably lucky the harbour wasn't 100' deep.
It's that level of pig headed stubborness which makes you proud to be British. It brings a tear to my eye.
RE: OT: HMAS Sydney
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:35 pm
by trojan58
Yep, sure does.