Shell strikes show HMAS Sydney battle scars (new images from the sunken warship)

PerthNow ^ | 5th April 2008 | Braden Quartermaine

[xkaydet65]

The Kormoran was a raider. an reconfigured merchantman.He(German ships were masculine)was armed with four 5.9 inch guns an assortment of lesser weapons and several torpedo tubes. She also carried a scout plane. Her weapons were hidden under plywood and canvas cabin structures and were revealed when attacking. It is believed that HMAS Sydney was surprised by Kormoran.Normally a ship with the speed and weaponry of Sydney, 8 six inch guns and 30+ knot speed, to the Kormoran's 19, would have had little trouble dispatching the raider.

One thing is true, the Krauts had excellent naval gunnery. This was true in 1916 at Jutland, in 39 when Graf Spee brutalized HMS Exeter, and in May 41 when Bismarck destroyed HMS Hood.

[Strategerist]

That's the Kormoran. -- the Nazi ship that sunk the Sydney by staging a sneak attack on her.

More the Sydney's captain killed his own crew by stupidly closing too close to the Kormoran.

[Strategerist]

All theories of Japanese involvement at all in the Sydney-Kormoran battle are abjectly silly.

[MinuteGal]

Fascinating stuff.....a multitude of forensic sciences at work under the sea.

Leni

[Last Dakotan]

Well, well you must live in an interesting world were theories you may not like can be dispatched immediately just by calling them “silly”.

[TXnMA]

Amazing photos and spectacular preservation -- but...

I'm afraid I don't agree with the analysis that says that "B" turret took "a direct hit between gun barrels"

I assume they are referring to the circular artifact below the open hatches and slightly to the right of centerline ...

"B" turret showing evidence of a direct hit between gun barrels and damage to turret roof.

I see a similar circular stucture (only encrusted over) on "X" turret...

The front of the gun housing of "X" turret, credited by the Germans with inflicting the mortal blow on Kormoran.

[PAR35]

I see a similar circular stucture (only encrusted over) on "X" turret.

I looked at those for a while earlier this evening. It looks like the one on 'X' didn't penetrate, perhaps because it hit a little lower where the angle would have been different.

[PAR35]

I didn’t know the Aussies made their warships with such big bridges!

It was originally designed and built as a British ship.

[naturalman1975]

I see what you're saying, but the round structure you see in the second image is not in the same location as that in the first image - if it was, I'd think you might be on to something.

But look at this image, which shows the A and B turret of a Royal Australian Navy cruiser of the Second World War -

These turrets did not have a round structure on their face as seen in the image from the Sydney. It is not part of the normal structure.

[naturalman1975]

Ping to my comment on the turrets markings. I think you’re correct.

[Roklok]

You got that right. The Sydney Captain was an idiot for getting to close.

[naturalman1975]

I think both are true - it was a sneak attack, but it succeeded so dramatically because Captain Burnett let it get so close, and it's extremely difficult to think of any plausible, defensible reason he did so.

Sydney was Burnett's first command of a warship. It's easy to believe he just wasn't experienced enough for the task.

If Sydney had still been under the command of Captain (later Vice Admiral) Collins, things might have been very different.

[PzLdr]

Or in 1940, when SCHARNHORST sank H.M.S GLORIOUS. If I recall, SCHARNHORST’S first salvo tore up the middle of the flight deck.

[TXnMA]

I suppose one (or both) of those could have been 37mm hits, but the symmetry, clean edges -- with no paint spalling -- and the near-identical locations made me wonder if they might have been structural features, instead. Unortunately, in the one photo most likely to answer that question

there is a *^*%(& officer standing exactly in the wrong place... ;-(

[TXnMA]

I somehow missed your post earlier. The argument against structural features there is compelling!

In that case, I would say that those must have been two amazingly near-identical 37mm hits. If so, that was all- but-unbelievable accuracy and repeatability!

That is comparable to hitting the ring fingers of the gun hands of TWO people shooting at you with handguns!!!

[TXnMA]

I capitulate! (See above...) ‘-)

[skeeter]

More the Sydney's captain killed his own crew by stupidly closing too close to the Kormoran.

As bravely as the Sydney may have fought, there is no excuse for what happened to her. Light cruisers were built to defeat merchant raiders.

[skeeter]

Something blew the armored panel of the turret housing.

[MediaMole]

The mark on B is significantly darker and larger than the mark on X, which is the same color as the other corroded areas on the lower section of the turret.

The B turret looks like it has a hole from enemy fire. The X turret looks like corrosion that happened to form a circular pattern.

[GATOR NAVY]

This second set of photos is amazingly clear. No evidence of the blurring that effects some of the first set.