Posted on 04/03/2008 11:34:54 PM PDT by naturalman1975
one gun per turret?
wtf?
The chalky round is the right ( as seen looking at it ) barrel, the two rectangles left are probably blown-open sighting hatches, and to the left, the other barrel angles off to the side.
The dark circle under the hatches is a shell impact- and considering that the armor there was probably from 2 to 6 inches thick, it's better not to think of what happened to the men working behind it.
the turret is pointing towards the camera?
or to the left?
Seems to me some of those surviving German seamen have to have some idea what happened...
ignore 23
where is this, between the gun barrels?
Between the barrels are two open hatches ( I’m making a guess here, based on other turret designs I’ve seen from that era, that they were for laying ( sighting ) the guns ) and below them is the shell hit.
Having challenged the raider, which was masquerading as the Dutch Straat Malakka, to identify herself, and not having received a satisfactory response, the cruiser's Captain inexplicably brought his ship to well within 1.000 metres of her - with disastrous results.- from link in #14
By the way, can you please add me to that list.
Thanks for posting. I thought of you as soon as I saw this article on another naval history board.
“Here’s an interesting post for the Military History ping list. By the way, can you please add me to that list.”
Thank you.
Will do.
The area where the HMAS Sydney sank is called “Shark Bay”.
Rescue efforts started several days later.
Despite the point of “common practice” what's the use of finishing off survivors when your own ship is sinking?
The nature of the Kormoran was known. The Royal Navy got pictures like the one above at post #14 to identify the raider.
There is a distinction between the use of the word “common” and “uncommon”. To say the occurrence was “not uncommon” means it happened more than simply sporadically.
As for the HMAS Sydney knowing the identity of the Kormoran, just because there was a picture of the ship in someone’s possession it does not follow that all units at sea knew her nature and identity. For ships disguised as merchant vessels, surprise was of the essence. Because there was a photograph of the Kormoran, that does not mean that the HMAS Sydney was necessarily aware of her nature or even existence. The dissemination of intelligence to deployed units was very different in 1941 than it is today.
However, nobody really knows the story and we are unlikely to find out.
As I postulated, they might not have known they were going down at that time. Damage is often done, and the ship may not sink until some time later.
It is all speculation, though.
As far as I know, they have not yet found the wreck of the Kormoran, which indicates it might not have sunk in the same vicinity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.