I'm the son of Bert Shilkin -HMAS Sydney sick bay attendant, who along with 40 other crew were on R&R in Fremantle when Sydney made her final tragic journey. I, like my late father, believe there was an extensive on going cover up. The info on Sydney was put in the 70 year secrets and still not fully released. My work "645 dead in 15 minutes" poses as yet unanswered questions. All of this investigation still remains devoid of exploring the fact the 645 crew failed to get off a ship that remained a float for 5 hours. Lifeboats released ... 80 ships through the area 3 weeks after battle and NOTHING. Steve Shilkin
WOW that William Aylott shown at the start is my grandfather, and Bill is my father, Dawn my Aunt. I have lived with this controversy my whole life. My Dad and Aunt are both alive and well. He will probably be in contact soon.
Hi Narelle, I am Andrew Hutchison, the guy in the video who showed the picture of your Dad and Aunt. I just emailed your Dad back. I choose that particular picture from the archives because it is just such a powerful statement about the whole, unique story of Sydney and Kormoran. Please let me know if there is any info we can provide your family with?
Point of interest. NO THEORY!!! THIS IS HOW IT HAPPENED! Kormorant practiced for this very action many times against DD Z-28 (citation needed..I am not near my reference material) Dettmers was well prepared and his crew very well drilled to fight this action! He waited for Sydney to move into the standard çhallenging position at 135degrees off Kormorant's right quarter. Kormorant had two under water torpedo tubes fixed to aim at the 135 degree challenging angle, which Dettmers knew the slowly moving Sidney was moving into. Dettmers torpedo officer had a hand held sighting device trained on Sydney and waited for Sydney to move squarely into it. At that moment, he told Dettmers he was ready and the order to fire the torpedoes was given. Dettmers waited while he timed the torpedoes running time over the 1250 closing range and gave the order to de-camouflage and commence firing when he expected the torpedoes to hit Sydney! The first shot hit Sydney's 'A' turret dead centre killing the crew immediately. (More about the offending Kormorant gun to follow) Now all Kormarants guns were brought into action and Sydney's bridge with its fortunate occupants was destroyed and all Command & Control forfeited! Only Sydney's 'X' turret was left operational and she was able to return fire with shots that were to doom Kormorant!! A fire was started that threatened Kormorant's huge load of mines below deck!!! Back to the gun that sealed Sydney's fate. On paper it looked as though Sydney completely out gunned Kormorant, but in fact they were were more closely matched that that. The 'gun that sealed Sydney's fate was custom built 'for the job! The 5.9 gun used special ammunition that featured a very powerful charge and streamlined shells, all optimised to strike at warships challenging from the standard 1250 yard challenging range! Over the range involved in this action the trajectory of the shell would have been FLAT!...the gun being BORE SIGHTED before de-camouflaging..hence the bulls eye shot on Sydney's 'A' turret which would have struck at the same moment as one of the torpedoes struck the hapless Sydney! To all intents and purposes Sydney was now finished! Completely out of control, with everyone on her bridge dead, she started to turn towards Kormorant, with her Walrus aircraft in flames and otherwise suffering other massive damage. All the while Kormorant's 20mm anti aircraft cannon had been blasting away at Sydney's 'uppers' causing damaging fires and probably killing everyone above deck. To make matters worse Kormorant also sported a 37mm ant tank gun which was also busily smashing everything above deck to smithereens! BY now Sydney was still turning towards Kormorant and about to present her Starboard side to the full fury of the 37mm cannon...which absolutely destroyed EVERYTHING above deck on Sydney. Now Sydney was little more than a floating wreck and drifting aimlessly to the South West... Meanwhile the essentially little damaged Kormorant had problems of her own...SERIOUS problems! In her hold were 30 mines and she has not been able to extinguish the fires caused by the return fire from Sydney's 'X' turret!!! Dettmers had no choice but to order "Abandon ship!". Strangely he did not try to save his serviceable Motor Launch... The subsequent in depth investigation/TRIAL, conducted in the 2000s put the blame for the Disaster squarely on the unfortunate Captain Burnett's shoulders..MOST UNFAIRLY!!! His efforts in challenging Kormorant were 'copy book'. His approach to his adversary was perfect! He was up against a foe who was well prepared to fight the action that ensued!...and had resources that Captain Burnett was absolutely unaware of and had no chance of countering! Blaming Burnett was most unfair, especially as the man had no chance to defend himself!...(against Kormorant or the subsequent Board of Inquiry!) STICK THAT IN YA FUNK & WAGNALLS! Mick Dunn Mick Dunn 1 second ago SAME OLD! WE AUSTRALIANS HAVE NEVER BEEN BEEN BEATEN BY A BETTER TEAM!...WE EITHER "THREW IT AWAY" OR "THE OTHER GUYS CHEATED" OR "THE UMPIRES GOT IT ALL WRONG!" Poor bloody Captain Burnett...this Maori Artillery Corporal salutes you Sir! Rest in Peace.
Pinguin did a very good job on HMS Cornwall, an 8 inch gunned heavy cruiser. Pinguin’s first shot put out Cornwall’s electrical system and the command communication from the Bridge to the guns. Various other shots started fires and Cornwall had to retreat for emergency repairs before coming back to shell Pinguin from longer range until her mine storage was hit and she blew up.
@mick dunn i assume then, you have actual evidence that kormoran's underwater torpedo tubes could fire while the ship was moving faster than 3 knots? If so i would like to see that evidence, because i dont see any mention anywhere that kormoran hove too and its been documented that she couldn't use those underwater tubes at speeds over 3 knots, so i really cant see how that happened. I think that the most likely scenario is that Burnett was negligent, but not for coming to close. rather his negligence lies in not bringing the ship to action stations, untill he realised that kormoran was a raider and preparing to fire. At that stage he would called action stations, but it would have been too late. This is supported by German accounts that sydneys 4 inch guns were not manned and were prevented from being manned by the volume of fire directed at them and the rest of the ships superstructure. its further supported by accounts from German sailors who saw sydneys cooks and stewards walking around on deck sightseeing.
Torpedos don’t launch while a ship is moving that fast; Kormoran decamouflaged and raised the battle ensign before any shot was fired. Why are there people that refuse to believe that a ship can sink in a naval battle? The Sydney sank. It moved in too close to the Kormoran and didn’t go to battle stations. Then they lost the battle. End of story. RIP. That’s it.
At least they now believe that the Kormoran did destroy the cruiser without help or other propaganda that was feed by the commonwealth like help from Japanese submarines or u boats or the crew machined gunned the crews. To bad they didn't take the germans account of the battle at the time.
@@jeffblacky exactly what I was saying. :D Thing is... we know for a fact that at least some of the Carly floats on Sydney went down with the ship. Even the one found on Easter Island had holes in it. I was just pointing out that whether we find bullet holes in the floats or not.. really doesn't say much since a lot of them got shot up before the ship sank.
@@marhawkman303 machine guns usage is very weird at times - even now- i used a 50 cal in Iraq - i can use it to suppress fire but not use it directly on buildings for fear of hitting " civilians" . The idea of spraying the deck - i bet some of the life jackets might of gotten hit while the sailors was on deck when the machine guns and 20 mm was used. Someone would try to say it was damaged while in water when sailors was wearing them. The law is very loose on these facts.
Bluster and speculation ; Net result of these 'experts' who were not even a 'twinkle in their parents eyes' - the truth of this story is far more sinister and convoluted than these people could ever realise, whilst they attempt to apportion blame on the 'other' side.
2 warships met at sea men fought and men died. Not everything has to be a conspiracy theory unless you cant accept your side will take casualties when the enemy surprises you.
A German sailor on board the Kormoran stated that, "no torpedo was fired" while the Dutch flag was being flown because the ship would have had to be stopped to fire the torpedo. I find that to be false on the face of it, as the German ship would not have stopped and had she been flying the German battle flag, the Sydney would have stood off and not come close. So it is my belief the Sydney was torpedoed while the Kormoran was under false flag. The Germans were not fond of following the Hague Convention on warfare.
i respectfully disagree... in that interview (and im pretty sure i know which one your talking about), the German sailor was only referring to kormoran's under water torpedo tubes, after being asked if she fired her underwater launchers. She had 2 dual torpedo launchers on the upper deck, hidden by false hull plates that had to swing clear to allow them to fire and 2 single tubes under the waterline. one on each side. She could fire her deck launchers while underway and did so against sydney, but the underwater tubes could not be fired unless the ship was doing less than 3 knots. when Sydney intercepted her kormoran, did not heave too so she would have been unable to fire her underwater torps, until she slowed down and by that time... the engagement would have been well underway. I think that the first shots from the Kormoran would have been torpedos from the deck launchers, at the same time as her first guns opened up. I believe they opened fire after the dutch flag was lowered and at the same time sydney opened up. It would have taken about the same time for the crew to move the plates that hid her guns and torpedo launcher from view as it would have taken to lower the dutch ensign. The fact that all accounts of the action state that the order to fire was given at the same time as the order to lower the dutch and rise the german ensign, gives me reason to believe that the rules of war where not violated. Speaking from experience as a former officer, this short time would have been just enough for Sydney's captain/crew to realise that the Kormoran was a raider and that she was about to open fire. As Sydney was most likey not alert and at action stations (She appeared not to be; multiple German accounts state that there was crew walking around on her deck), it would have taken roughly the same amount of time for sydney to man her guns as it took kormoran to unmask her weapons and drop the flag. As a result both ships would have opened fire at about the same time. Also there is still some very sobering questions to be asked regarding the conduct of sydney. Why was Sydney not at action stations and alert? why was there crew such as the ships cooks walking around on deck? We could go down this rabbit hole, till the cows come home, but at the end of the day, the simple fact is that there is no evidence to suggest that kormoran's crew and captain violated the rules of war and that Sydney was even alert and at action stations. Its obvious to me that Sydney's captain, could have prevented the loss of his ship. She obviously was not alert and not at action stations. She came in way too close, making her main guns largely ineffective and her 4 inch guns were unmanned, giving the kormoran an advantage, in that she used her anti aircraft guns to rake the 4 inch guns and making them inaccessible due to the heavy fire directed towards them (this has been confirmed by accounts of a number of German sailors). To me this seems like a massive lapse of judgement from a captain that had a pretty good record. Honestly we have to come to accept that some massive mistakes were made by Sydney and that those mistakes enabled a interior foe to sink her. I know its hard for some people to accept and thats why all this crap still get thrown about, but its got to stop. Especially when there is no evidence (including circumstantial evidence), that supports any of these claims.
Every single conspiracy theory has been debunked. The ships were found exactly where they were supposed to be...right where the German crew said they would be. The Captain of the Sydney moved in too close and never went to battle stations. No torpedo was launch while the ship was moving towards what would be the torpedo’s target. That’s asinine. Like flat earthers, conspiracy theorists just cannot help themselves.
Im sure not all german sailors knew what was going on all over the ship. German crew had no reason to fire without the first uncovering they knew they where going down they had no reason to think they would escape this so why you wouldnt commit a war crime just before being captured now would you. This the Germans had to cheat to win BS is pretty pathetic if you ask me.
@@mamavswild yeah, Kapitan Detmers's "Plan A" was to talk Sydney into leaving them alone. He didn't want a fight with a warship, and knew he couldn't out run Sydney. But, there was over an hour between sighting Sydney and when Kormoran opened fire. Every gun on Kormoran was prepped and ready, and there was a mere 6-second time window between Detmers giving the order and the guns firing. The camouflage on Kormoran was that quick to fold open. Detmers explained at one point in his book that it used counter weighted hinges so that one man could open/close with one hand if they weren't latched.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
My Grandfather was part of the Kormoran-Crew.
R.I.P. to all the souls lost at sea.
I remeber him telling the story a lot of times.
My great Uncle was transferred off the Sydney two weeks before it was sunk. RIP those who were less fortunate.
Thank you all for this great achievement.
Soo sad, those brave Navy men, may they R.I P
I'm the son of Bert Shilkin -HMAS Sydney sick bay attendant, who along with 40 other crew were on R&R in Fremantle when Sydney made her final tragic journey. I, like my late father, believe there was an extensive on going cover up. The info on Sydney was put in the 70 year secrets and still not fully released. My work "645 dead in 15 minutes" poses as yet unanswered questions. All of this investigation still remains devoid of exploring the fact the 645 crew failed to get off a ship that remained a float for 5 hours. Lifeboats released ... 80 ships through the area 3 weeks after battle and NOTHING. Steve Shilkin
WOW that William Aylott shown at the start is my grandfather, and Bill is my father, Dawn my Aunt. I have lived with this controversy my whole life. My Dad and Aunt are both alive and well. He will probably be in contact soon.
Hi Narelle,
I am Andrew Hutchison, the guy in the video who showed the picture of your Dad and Aunt. I just emailed your Dad back. I choose that particular picture from the archives because it is just such a powerful statement about the whole, unique story of Sydney and Kormoran. Please let me know if there is any info we can provide your family with?
Skip ahead to 5:32 when the interesting part begins.
My uncle was aboard as a Petty Officer .
Point of interest.
NO THEORY!!! THIS IS HOW IT HAPPENED!
Kormorant practiced for this very action many times against DD Z-28 (citation needed..I am not near my reference material) Dettmers was well prepared and his crew very well drilled to fight this action! He waited for Sydney to move into the standard çhallenging position at 135degrees off Kormorant's right quarter.
Kormorant had two under water torpedo tubes fixed to aim at the 135 degree challenging angle, which Dettmers knew the slowly moving Sidney was moving into. Dettmers torpedo officer had a hand held sighting device trained on Sydney and waited for Sydney to move squarely into it. At that moment, he told Dettmers he was ready and the order to fire the torpedoes was given. Dettmers waited while he timed the torpedoes running time over the 1250 closing range and gave the order to de-camouflage and commence firing when he expected the torpedoes to hit Sydney!
The first shot hit Sydney's 'A' turret dead centre killing the crew immediately. (More about the offending Kormorant gun to follow) Now all Kormarants guns were brought into action and Sydney's bridge with its fortunate occupants was destroyed and all Command & Control forfeited! Only Sydney's 'X' turret was left operational and she was able to return fire with shots that were to doom Kormorant!! A fire was started that threatened Kormorant's huge load of mines below deck!!!
Back to the gun that sealed Sydney's fate. On paper it looked as though Sydney completely out gunned Kormorant, but in fact they were were more closely matched that that. The 'gun that sealed Sydney's fate was custom built 'for the job! The 5.9 gun used special ammunition that featured a very powerful charge and streamlined shells, all optimised to strike at warships challenging from the standard 1250 yard challenging range! Over the range involved in this action the trajectory of the shell would have been FLAT!...the gun being BORE SIGHTED before de-camouflaging..hence the bulls eye shot on Sydney's 'A' turret which would have struck at the same moment as one of the torpedoes struck the hapless Sydney!
To all intents and purposes Sydney was now finished! Completely out of control, with everyone on her bridge dead, she started to turn towards Kormorant, with her Walrus aircraft in flames and otherwise suffering other massive damage. All the while Kormorant's 20mm anti aircraft cannon had been blasting away at Sydney's 'uppers' causing damaging fires and probably killing everyone above deck. To make matters worse Kormorant also sported a 37mm ant tank gun which was also busily smashing everything above deck to smithereens!
BY now Sydney was still turning towards Kormorant and about to present her Starboard side to the full fury of the 37mm cannon...which absolutely destroyed EVERYTHING above deck on Sydney. Now Sydney was little more than a floating wreck and drifting aimlessly to the South West...
Meanwhile the essentially little damaged Kormorant had problems of her own...SERIOUS problems! In her hold were 30 mines and she has not been able to extinguish the fires caused by the return fire from Sydney's 'X' turret!!! Dettmers had no choice but to order "Abandon ship!". Strangely he did not try to save his serviceable Motor Launch...
The subsequent in depth investigation/TRIAL, conducted in the 2000s put the blame for the Disaster squarely on the unfortunate Captain Burnett's shoulders..MOST UNFAIRLY!!! His efforts in challenging Kormorant were 'copy book'. His approach to his adversary was perfect! He was up against a foe who was well prepared to fight the action that ensued!...and had resources that Captain Burnett was absolutely unaware of and had no chance of countering!
Blaming Burnett was most unfair, especially as the man had no chance to defend himself!...(against Kormorant or the subsequent Board of Inquiry!)
STICK THAT IN YA FUNK & WAGNALLS!
Mick Dunn
Mick Dunn
1 second ago
SAME OLD! WE AUSTRALIANS HAVE NEVER BEEN BEEN BEATEN BY A BETTER TEAM!...WE EITHER "THREW IT AWAY" OR "THE OTHER GUYS CHEATED" OR "THE UMPIRES GOT IT ALL WRONG!" Poor bloody Captain Burnett...this Maori Artillery Corporal salutes you Sir! Rest in Peace.
Kormoran had a rotatable torpedo launcher in the side of the hull on each side, but I never knew it had underwater torpedoes
Pinguin did a very good job on HMS Cornwall, an 8 inch gunned heavy cruiser. Pinguin’s first shot put out Cornwall’s electrical system and the command communication from the Bridge to the guns. Various other shots started fires and Cornwall had to retreat for emergency repairs before coming back to shell Pinguin from longer range until her mine storage was hit and she blew up.
Tldr
@mick dunn i assume then, you have actual evidence that kormoran's underwater torpedo tubes could fire while the ship was moving faster than 3 knots? If so i would like to see that evidence, because i dont see any mention anywhere that kormoran hove too and its been documented that she couldn't use those underwater tubes at speeds over 3 knots, so i really cant see how that happened.
I think that the most likely scenario is that Burnett was negligent, but not for coming to close. rather his negligence lies in not bringing the ship to action stations, untill he realised that kormoran was a raider and preparing to fire. At that stage he would called action stations, but it would have been too late. This is supported by German accounts that sydneys 4 inch guns were not manned and were prevented from being manned by the volume of fire directed at them and the rest of the ships superstructure. its further supported by accounts from German sailors who saw sydneys cooks and stewards walking around on deck sightseeing.
Torpedos don’t launch while a ship is moving that fast; Kormoran decamouflaged and raised the battle ensign before any shot was fired.
Why are there people that refuse to believe that a ship can sink in a naval battle? The Sydney sank. It moved in too close to the Kormoran and didn’t go to battle stations. Then they lost the battle.
End of story. RIP. That’s it.
At least they now believe that the Kormoran did destroy the cruiser without help or other propaganda that was feed by the commonwealth like help from Japanese submarines or u boats or the crew machined gunned the crews. To bad they didn't take the germans account of the battle at the time.
they did keep the crew in jail for two year's after the war ended...revenge.
well the Germans DID machine gun the crew of Sydney.... but not after the main engagement was over.
@@marhawkman303 they sprayed the men on the deck with 20 mm - not in the water = no crime
@@jeffblacky exactly what I was saying. :D Thing is... we know for a fact that at least some of the Carly floats on Sydney went down with the ship. Even the one found on Easter Island had holes in it.
I was just pointing out that whether we find bullet holes in the floats or not.. really doesn't say much since a lot of them got shot up before the ship sank.
@@marhawkman303 machine guns usage is very weird at times - even now- i used a 50 cal in Iraq - i can use it to suppress fire but not use it directly on buildings for fear of hitting " civilians" . The idea of spraying the deck - i bet some of the life jackets might of gotten hit while the sailors was on deck when the machine guns and 20 mm was used. Someone would try to say it was damaged while in water when sailors was wearing them. The law is very loose on these facts.
Bizzare.
my pop was met to join here but the line was to long so hey join the army
Bluster and speculation ; Net result of these 'experts' who were not even a 'twinkle in their parents eyes' - the truth of this story is far more sinister and convoluted than these people could ever realise, whilst they attempt to apportion blame on the 'other' side.
2 warships met at sea men fought and men died. Not everything has to be a conspiracy theory unless you cant accept your side will take casualties when the enemy surprises you.
A German sailor on board the Kormoran stated that, "no torpedo was fired" while the Dutch flag was being flown because the ship would have had to be stopped to fire the torpedo. I find that to be false on the face of it, as the German ship would not have stopped and had she been flying the German battle flag, the Sydney would have stood off and not come close. So it is my belief the Sydney was torpedoed while the Kormoran was under false flag. The Germans were not fond of following the Hague Convention on warfare.
i respectfully disagree... in that interview (and im pretty sure i know which one your talking about), the German sailor was only referring to kormoran's under water torpedo tubes, after being asked if she fired her underwater launchers. She had 2 dual torpedo launchers on the upper deck, hidden by false hull plates that had to swing clear to allow them to fire and 2 single tubes under the waterline. one on each side.
She could fire her deck launchers while underway and did so against sydney, but the underwater tubes could not be fired unless the ship was doing less than 3 knots. when Sydney intercepted her kormoran, did not heave too so she would have been unable to fire her underwater torps, until she slowed down and by that time... the engagement would have been well underway.
I think that the first shots from the Kormoran would have been torpedos from the deck launchers, at the same time as her first guns opened up. I believe they opened fire after the dutch flag was lowered and at the same time sydney opened up. It would have taken about the same time for the crew to move the plates that hid her guns and torpedo launcher from view as it would have taken to lower the dutch ensign.
The fact that all accounts of the action state that the order to fire was given at the same time as the order to lower the dutch and rise the german ensign, gives me reason to believe that the rules of war where not violated.
Speaking from experience as a former officer, this short time would have been just enough for Sydney's captain/crew to realise that the Kormoran was a raider and that she was about to open fire.
As Sydney was most likey not alert and at action stations (She appeared not to be; multiple German accounts state that there was crew walking around on her deck), it would have taken roughly the same amount of time for sydney to man her guns as it took kormoran to unmask her weapons and drop the flag. As a result both ships would have opened fire at about the same time.
Also there is still some very sobering questions to be asked regarding the conduct of sydney.
Why was Sydney not at action stations and alert? why was there crew such as the ships cooks walking around on deck?
We could go down this rabbit hole, till the cows come home, but at the end of the day, the simple fact is that there is no evidence to suggest that kormoran's crew and captain violated the rules of war and that Sydney was even alert and at action stations.
Its obvious to me that Sydney's captain, could have prevented the loss of his ship. She obviously was not alert and not at action stations. She came in way too close, making her main guns largely ineffective and her 4 inch guns were unmanned, giving the kormoran an advantage, in that she used her anti aircraft guns to rake the 4 inch guns and making them inaccessible due to the heavy fire directed towards them (this has been confirmed by accounts of a number of German sailors). To me this seems like a massive lapse of judgement from a captain that had a pretty good record.
Honestly we have to come to accept that some massive mistakes were made by Sydney and that those mistakes enabled a interior foe to sink her. I know its hard for some people to accept and thats why all this crap still get thrown about, but its got to stop. Especially when there is no evidence (including circumstantial evidence), that supports any of these claims.
Every single conspiracy theory has been debunked. The ships were found exactly where they were supposed to be...right where the German crew said they would be.
The Captain of the Sydney moved in too close and never went to battle stations.
No torpedo was launch while the ship was moving towards what would be the torpedo’s target. That’s asinine. Like flat earthers, conspiracy theorists just cannot help themselves.
Im sure not all german sailors knew what was going on all over the ship. German crew had no reason to fire without the first uncovering they knew they where going down they had no reason to think they would escape this so why you wouldnt commit a war crime just before being captured now would you. This the Germans had to cheat to win BS is pretty pathetic if you ask me.
@@mamavswild yeah, Kapitan Detmers's "Plan A" was to talk Sydney into leaving them alone. He didn't want a fight with a warship, and knew he couldn't out run Sydney.
But, there was over an hour between sighting Sydney and when Kormoran opened fire. Every gun on Kormoran was prepped and ready, and there was a mere 6-second time window between Detmers giving the order and the guns firing. The camouflage on Kormoran was that quick to fold open. Detmers explained at one point in his book that it used counter weighted hinges so that one man could open/close with one hand if they weren't latched.
@@marhawkman303 agreed
the Kormoran was a disguised war ship. shame on them.
It was always a tactic widely used inclused by british since centuries. The only obligation is to raise your real flag before firing which he did.